Tell me, what are you less than loving about the Pathfinder Player Companion line?
(Or, conversely...)
And - because it should always be more of chore to criticize than to compliment - what would you do to add increased awesome?
I dont see it as particularly solvable, but it's a slight hassle to have to page through lots of books for the mechanical stuff you're looking for.
In my perfect world, these would be predominantly flavor material and the mechanics would be restricted primarily to the rules line (with the odd 'Golarion specific rules hardcover' showing up somewhere or other).
I'd expect to be in a pretty significant minority, however.
|
The fact that the line between CS line and Companion line is still sometimes blurry. Faction Guide should have been a Companion book, ditto for Pathfinder Society Field Guide. Country books should have never been part of this line... unless they're done like the Dragon Empires books, a CS line book for GMs and a Companion book for players. I still despise the fact that Cheliax has a measly 32 page book, while Darkmoon Vale has 64 pages. Grumble grumble grumble.
I still think that the whole idea of forcing material into "Faith/Magic/Social/Combat" chapters needs to be done away with.
Also, Adventurer's Armory needs a second edition so that I can forget the first printing ever existed :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I'd like to see more of (or at all);
1) There was a weird little 3.0 product that I don't remember the name of, that included flavor examples for what members of various races would look like as members of various classes, including flavor ideas for a dwarven wizard or a halfling monk or a half-orc paladin, as those ideas were pretty new to a predominately 1st/2nd edition playerbase, with it's race/class restrictions.
That's the sort of thing I'd like to see more of in Companion lines, examples of how things that might not be immediately intuitive would fit into Golarion. Everybody knows what a halfling rogue or dwarven fighter would look like (thanks Mr. Tolkien!), but a halfling paladin or dwarven wizard isn't nearly as 'obvious.' Less flavor geared towards making the same sort of character that everyone's been making for twenty odd years, and more flavor geared towards integrating the 'any race can be any class' change from 3.0 into the setting, by introducing concepts like guilds of dwarven rune-wizards, or spear-dancing elven barbarians, or a 'sundered chain' order of former slave half-orc monks, who use their broken slave-chains as weapons, could make these less intuitive combinations sing.
2) More descriptions of heraldry, clothing styles, architectural styles, armor preferences, common foods and trade goods, etc. for regions or cultures detailed. Not just flavor, but the sort of flavor that's going to be relevant when I'm describing a group of Shoanti raiders and don't want to say 'They're Shoanti raiders,' or describing the contents of a plundered Varisian trading caravan and my brain locks up and I say, 'Uh, they were carrying turnips.' because I have no idea what crops are grown in Varisia.
3) More mechanical bits that are also flavorful. Traits are great for this, but feats and spells also can ooze regional or cultural flavor, if designed well. I'm not convinced that new weapons (such as those in Gnomes of Golarion) have been so successful, although I would love for a book on somewhere like Qadira or Osirion to detail what armors are like there. Do they wear the same heavy armors as everyone else? If they do not, do they have some regional alternate class ability to off-set their lack of heavy armor with a dodge bonus while unencumbered?
This last thing, IMO, is something that should have been addressed a long time ago, when Osirion and Qadira were being pushed as part of the 'big 5' nations for inclusion in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play, because, for the most part, any sort of factional flavor is utterly abandoned in favor of everybody just wearing whatever armor is mechanically best, regardless of whether they came from a desert or not.
4) The Companion line is the perfect place to include Golarion specific rules items that would normally go in some sort of 'Golarion Campaign Setting' or 'Players Guide to Golarion,' like 'all clerics in Golarion must have a diety.' Ten billion electrons wasted on threads about this topic, and half of the hair on James Jacob's head, could have been saved if it was just printed in a book somewhere, that players could read. I'm sure it's not the only thing in the Core Rulebook that might not apply 100% the same in Golarion, as well, and a Players Companion would be the best place for this sort of info.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike that I sometime have to search through these books for rules rather then having them gathered in one of the main books. I can especially mention traits, I have completely lost overview of what feats there are and where they are. I truly wish I had a book gathering all these things into one book rather then spread out.
Things I'd like to see more of (or at all);
1) There was a weird little 3.0 product that I don't remember the name of, that included flavor examples for what members of various races would look like as members of various classes, including flavor ideas for a dwarven wizard or a halfling monk or a half-orc paladin, as those ideas were pretty new to a predominately 1st/2nd edition playerbase, with it's race/class restrictions.
That's the sort of thing I'd like to see more of in Companion lines, examples of how things that might not be immediately intuitive would fit into Golarion. Everybody knows what a halfling rogue or dwarven fighter would look like (thanks Mr. Tolkien!), but a halfling paladin or dwarven wizard isn't nearly as 'obvious.' Less flavor geared towards making the same sort of character that everyone's been making for twenty odd years, and more flavor geared towards integrating the 'any race can be any class' change from 3.0 into the setting, by introducing concepts like guilds of dwarven rune-wizards, or spear-dancing elven barbarians, or a 'sundered chain' order of former slave half-orc monks, who use their broken slave-chains as weapons, could make these less intuitive combinations sing.
2) More descriptions of heraldry, clothing styles, architectural styles, armor preferences, common foods and trade goods, etc. for regions or cultures detailed. Not just flavor, but the sort of flavor that's going to be relevant when I'm describing a group of Shoanti raiders and don't want to say 'They're Shoanti raiders,' or describing the contents of a plundered Varisian trading caravan and my brain locks up and I say, 'Uh, they were carrying turnips.' because I have no idea what crops are grown in Varisia.
3) More mechanical bits that are also flavorful. Traits are great for this, but feats and spells also can ooze regional or cultural flavor, if designed well. I'm not convinced that new weapons (such as those in Gnomes of Golarion) have been so successful, although I would love for a book on...
+1000
Tell me, what are you less than loving about the Pathfinder Player Companion line?
(Or, conversely...)
And - because it should always be more of chore to criticize than to compliment - what would you do to add increased awesome?
This really isn't a problem with the Player Companion series as much as it is me, but I hate how so much unique mechanical stuff goes into the Player Companion series that is never brought into the Core Rules series. As a GM who predominately plays their own Campaign Setting, it's a little annoying.
There's plenty of stuff that doesn't necessarily need to be unique to Golarion in those books! *crosses fingers for the halfling jinxes to make a return in the Advanced Player's Guide*
|
|
Tell me, what are you less than loving about the Pathfinder Player Companion line?
(Or, conversely...)
And - because it should always be more of chore to criticize than to compliment - what would you do to add increased awesome?
This really isn't a problem with the Player Companion series as much as it is me, but I hate how so much unique mechanical stuff goes into the Player Companion series that is never brought into the Core Rules series. As a GM who predominately plays their own Campaign Setting, it's a little annoying.
There's plenty of stuff that doesn't necessarily need to be unique to Golarion in those books! *crosses fingers for the halfling jinxes to make a return in the Advanced Player's Guide*
PIRANHA STRIKEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Player Companions are just too slim. I've never really been happy with their size; other than in PDF format where it doesn't really matter. That said, I'd rather see a Player Companion every 3 or 4 months; but have it the same size as a Campaign Setting. Or go one step better: merge Companion and Campaign line and produce a single 96-pager every 2 or 3 months.
Other than that - I'd like to see more on regional distinction of classes. I want to see a Qadira fighter archetype and a Cheliax fighter archetype and see how they are distinct and reinforce the setting. I want regional spells, regional treasure, regional racial distinctions.
I'd like to see the connection region/type and flavor more strongly compliment each other. The Cheliax companion with its feats hit a sweet spot in that regard.
I like the little quirky bits of flavour that I can pass on to my players as a GM. My players arent yet interested enough in the setting as to borrow my players guides. I've managed to use them as a player in my recent PbP games, and that's been a hoot. ESPECIALLY the city lines, though I'm an even bigger fan of the "Faiths of" line.
So far the only interest in the setting my players have shown in the setting is bullying me into trying to work a priest of Groetus into Witchwar Legacy...
Restraunts, locales, sayings, slang, cuisine, aphorisms, customs, fashion... I'd like to see more of this.
As a side note, I was kind of put off by Gnomes of Golarion. (It just... came at a bad time, for me. :P) While I loved the "Physical and Mental Traits", it turned out to be a really bad tool for convincing my players that Gnomes can be taken somewhat seriously in this setting (because the Bleaching is deliciously dark.)
The art direction, equipment, "tea-kettle knight" and the tantrum feat kind of threw all of my excitement back into my face. I'm not saying gnomes shouldn't be silly... but a battle-ladder? Really?
|
In my experience, many players are not interested in granular details about setting, flavor, and the like, especially if it is written in a neutral, even tone and in a dense block of text. GMs like that stuff, of course, but players wonder, 'Why do I care about this?' What they are interested in is clear, concise information that excites the imagination and is easily referenced and applicable to their character, right now.
As an example, let's take a look at a passage from Faiths of Corruption:
Like Lamashtu, Shub-Niggurath is thought to be responsible for the introduction of frightening species into the world, but unlike the Demon Queen, the Outer God's children are a more aberrant get. Your rites sacrifice to aberrations, offering children and the infirm to tentacled and oozing horrors that should not be. You have an unholy fascination with that which slithers, scurries, and oozes, and you believe that one day, should you mate with such a beast, you will achieve unity with your master.
Starting with a comparison to Lamashtu is likely to alienate many players, because unless they have some reason to know who Lamashtu is, they'll have to look her up. This is a barrier to this short article's usefulness for a player making a decision about which evil god to play, or when referencing information about their evil god to use in-game.
Things start to spice up, however, once the text starts addressing the reader directly. Sacrifice children to tentacled monsters? Mate with ooze fiends? For a player looking for a 'metal' concept, this is going to sing to them.
That said, the presentation could be more straightforward, with bullet points, quick story hooks, roleplaying tips, and a how-to guide of options that will make a character uniquely 'Shubby'. This does not necessarily have to be new options presented, but can also reference other books, preferably with a page citation. It should also be written in a way that talks directly to the player, with an eye for presentation that jumps off the page and demands that you play this concept because it so damn cool.
None of this is to say Mr. McComb is a poor writer, or that these ideas aren't good - they're great! The problem I've seen is that the Player's Companion line has been written in the same style as the Campaign Setting line, which is to say aimed at an audience of GMs.
I also recognize that a few players love this stuff, myself included, so it is worth preserving some of it. Perhaps each section could be 'front-loaded' with quick 'n' dirty summaries, allowing a casual player to understand the basic concepts at a glance, with more detailed information to follow?
...
This is a need that has clearly been recognized, as the books have increasingly moved in this direction, especially with such handy tools as the paladin codes in the first two 'Faiths of' books.
Thanks for asking for our feedback, Wes!
Thanks for asking for our feedback, Wes!
Noooo problem! And you can bet I'm listening and taking notes, so thanks a ton to everyone contributing - the range of interpretations and preferences is definitely proving insightful.
And keep an eye out for a few more questions like this in the coming days. Liiiike right now (Player Companions: A Matter of Voice).
|
|
I disliked how the Andoran book had the mechanical bits all over the place, and am relieved that experiment has not been repeated.
I understand that the nature of the business is to have the companion support the AP that's in print at the time it comes out, but it sometimes seems that they can be a little too focused on it, at the expense of other, earlier (or future!) APs.
|
|
I like the city books in the GM line, but I don't think I'd like them as much if I were just a player. Neither would I like needing the PFS book if I wanted to know more about Absalom, but didn't play PFS. So I guess I'd like an Absalom book, like how the Inner Sea Primer is the distant descendent of the Gazetteer.
|
Count me in for wanting them thick enough to have something on the spine - right now they are a pain on the bookshelf.
Could we slow down the release pace and go deeper on topics to accomplish that?
Restraunts, locales, sayings, slang, cuisine, aphorisms, customs, fashion... I'd like to see more of this.
This kind of stuff allows you as a GM to rapidly give a new place enough distinct flavour to make it feel truly different. The old FR 'Volo' stuff was great for that.
|
One of the things I really hate about the Companion line, (and in all honesty this seems true for many of the books in the last year or so) is how little they actually bring to the game that hasn't already been done a lot. The vast majority of the "fluff" is already out there in many other books, so it seems the more material I have, the less I get from any book. So I would like that mentality in mind with the writting of future books, that if the material is already presented in say 2 other books, make a reference to those books with a brief explanation and add something new instead.
Things I would like to see (really in all the books), are alternate rules that really highlight various regions differences. Mechanics and "crunch" both more prevailent and more evenly distributed. But also, primarily focused on concepts that are not so obvious. For example, I expect in the pirates lines comming out, a lot of stuff on making Rogues, Bards, Fighters, Barbarians, and maybe Rangers into Pirates, which is exactly the sort of material I will never need. That stuff is both obvious and easily done within the Core system. Instead, lets see some Cleric, Paladin, Witch, Oracle, or even Monk pirates, including Feat and Skill support, some new Spells (or uses for spells) for that sort of game.
Also, I'd really like to see some of the 3.5 material either updated fully (preferably) or rewritten for the current rules systems. The fluff, for the most part is fine, so I would really like say, some of the rules from Elves of Golarion to just be updated, (but more so than a simple copy/paste strictly according to the conversion).
I'd like a look at alternate settings within Golarion. Alternate time lines. "What-if's". Things of that nature. Campaign/story hooks that go beyond the basics would be really cool. I realize, at first glance this seems beyond the Companion, but if you really think about it, it is actually the perfect place for all of this.
From a Feats PoV again, how about adding some Feats focused on other Classes. Fighting-Styles for Clerics and Monks of a specific Faith, or that help allow some classes to function a little better in a certain type of setting, (like say a Paladin in a pirates game (like "Keeper of the Code" from Pirates of the Carribean).
Seperate the Mechanics and non-mechanics sections much more, as it is a big hassle a lot of the time to search through the books for that one little thing.
Things start to spice up, however, once the text starts addressing the reader directly. Sacrifice children to tentacled monsters? Mate with ooze fiends? For a player looking for a 'metal' concept, this is going to sing to them.
Oh man, I couldn't agree with this post more. There are lots of wonderful details in these books, but maybe a shift away from that and towards "ideas", unabashedly presenting players with some awesome character concepts, would make for a cooler product.
Out of curosity, what can we expect to come next? I'm sad to see the "Faiths of" and "Races of" lines dried up... Would we possibly be coming back to these?
Out of curiosity, what can we expect to come next? I'm sad to see the "Faiths of" and "Races of" lines dried up... Would we possibly be coming back to these?
The preorder section of the Player Companion page has or current list of all Player Companions that have been announced. Hopefully Blood of Fiends proves we're not done with the "[Race] of Golarion" concept quite yet.
There's very little about the line that I don't like, actually. It's become one of my favorite product lines, hence the subscription.
I don't like the inclusion of NPC stats as was done with Elves & Osirion. It's got to stay player-focused. Yes, it's also GM-fodder as with Faiths of Corruption and Goblins of Golarion, but if it doesn't also serve as PC-material, it should be in the Campaign Setting line.
Things start to spice up, however, once the text starts addressing the reader directly.
Interestingly, as positively as this seems to go over on this thread, the contrary take seems to be holding sway over on the Player Companions: A Matter of Voice thread. If you have a strong - or any - opinion about this sort of voice use in the Players Companions, do chime in over there.
Also, Adventurer's Armory needs a second edition so that I can forget the first printing ever existed :)
I do not think I saw anyone else answer this, but Adventurer's Armory got a proper second printing a month or two ago.
Out of curiosity, what can we expect to come next? I'm sad to see the "Faiths of" and "Races of" lines dried up... Would we possibly be coming back to these?The preorder section of the Player Companion page has or current list of all Player Companions that have been announced. Hopefully Blood of Fiends proves we're not done with the "[Race] of Golarion" concept quite yet.
The cover art for Blood of Fiends... You guys really spoil us, y'know that? My kingdom for a hi-res print? :D
|
|
Out of curiosity, what can we expect to come next? I'm sad to see the "Faiths of" and "Races of" lines dried up... Would we possibly be coming back to these?The preorder section of the Player Companion page has or current list of all Player Companions that have been announced. Hopefully Blood of Fiends proves we're not done with the "[Race] of Golarion" concept quite yet.
I saw that after my villainy post above, and was sad. When will the aasimar get their day in the sun?
The cover art for Blood of Fiends... You guys really spoil us, y'know that? My kingdom for a hi-res print? :D
(Don't get too excited, that's a mock-up cover. That piece of art is from Book of the Damned volume 2. Sorry dude.)
I saw that after my villainy post above, and was sad. When will the aasimar get their day in the sun?
Oh, I figured we'd just do tieflings. No one really plays aasimar, do they?
How about this. Everyone clap really, really hard and if we hear you clapping, we'll put a book about playing aasimar on the 2012 schedule. Deal?
[Now make your detect sarcasm roll and save vs "no unofficial product announcements"... or something] ;)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
A randomly ordered list of minor things I don't like about the line (note that they're all relatively minor, and the line as a whole is great.)
1) The forced social, magic, faith, combat sections. If it fits in the book, great, but if it doesn't, then don't include it. If the ratio of these sections isn't balanced, that's fine either. For example, in Orcs of Golarion, a longer section on combat and a smaller section on magic would have been fine, since that's how Orcs tend to be.
2) Don't spread crunch throughout the book. A few of the earlier books (I don't recall which) had traits all over the place, making them hard to find.
3) while it's great having these focused books have appropriate traits, this is the one part of crunch that would be particularly good to have compiled somewhere for easy refernece (and grouped by category). Any chance they could be added to the PRD or a similar resource?
4) I also wasn't a big fan of the NPC stat blocks - whether it was the ruler of a realm, a random merchant, or a typical city guard - that's GM material, not player. I'd much rather have that page count devoted to more flavor or player focused material.
The cover art for Blood of Fiends... You guys really spoil us, y'know that? My kingdom for a hi-res print? :D(Don't get too excited, that's a mock-up cover. That piece of art is from Book of the Damned volume 2. Sorry dude.)
Hrm, I'm more of a devil guy... But I may yet have reason to check this out! Thank ye kindly.
|
|
I saw that after my villainy post above, and was sad. When will the aasimar get their day in the sun?Oh, I figured we'd just do tieflings. No one really plays aasimar, do they?
I love the Aasimar, and honestly I detest the Tieflings. Like the Drow, they are a weak concept that is much over done, and really don't offer anything. Aasimar, on the other hand, are so full of potential. In other words, I have the complete oposite view, in that who really plays/like Tieflings? The only reason I don't play Aasimar, honestly, is because they are often not allowed, (nor are Tieflings).
In other words. . . <Clap, clap, clap!!!>
The Player Companions are just too slim. I've never really been happy with their size; other than in PDF format where it doesn't really matter. That said, I'd rather see a Player Companion every 3 or 4 months; but have it the same size as a Campaign Setting. Or go one step better: merge Companion and Campaign line and produce a single 96-pager every 2 or 3 months.
Whilst I wouldn't merge the lines, I do agree with this. Back when I went through a phase of deciding to buy as many products from the backlist as possible I picked up a couple of the Player Companions (Sargava and Osirion) and was very disappointed in them compared to the Campaign settings. They're just too lightweight, and didn't have enough crunch / mechanics for my taste. I've continued to buy modules (although I'd like *those* to be longer as well) and Campaign books religiously, but although I've been intrigued by the idea of the Faiths line, I haven't bought them and don't think they're books that are on my 'must buy' list.
1) The forced social, magic, faith, combat sections. If it fits in the book, great, but if it doesn't, then don't include it. If the ratio of these sections isn't balanced, that's fine either. For example, in Orcs of Golarion, a longer section on combat and a smaller section on magic would have been fine, since that's how Orcs tend to be.
I'm curious what other people think about these sections as well. From what it sounds like, there seems to be general agreement that rules and crunch should go in a separate section of Player's Companion books, which is largely what we try to do with the Combat, Faith, Magic, and Social sections at the back of each volume.
I suppose I'm wondering something to this effect: are these sections effective in collaborating the rules bits of these books in logical locations that are easy to find and present the information in a way that is useful to the players? What do other people think about shrinking other sections to expand others such as in the case of books that would be more combat- or magic-focused?
Continue to weigh in on other matters that interest you, of course; all the feedback is great so far!
I'm curious what other people think about these sections as well. From what it sounds like, there seems to be general agreement that rules and crunch should go in a separate section of Player's Companion books, which is largely what we try to do with the Combat, Faith, Magic, and Social sections at the back of each volume.
I suppose I'm wondering something to this effect: are these sections effective in collaborating the rules bits of these books in logical locations that are easy to find and present the information in a way that is useful to the players? What do other people think about shrinking other sections to expand others such as in the case of books that would be more combat- or magic-focused?
Continue to weigh in on other matters that interest you, of course; all the feedback is great so far!
I think those sections are fine. But I would rather they not be used as straitjackets. If they need to shrink or expand, so be it.
|
|
Yes, I would like the mechanics/rules/spells/ etc to be in those sections, which for the most part they are. A really bad example, in my opinion would be the Andoran book (which also has those sections), but has a Trait on every other page for a while (because it is broken up by regions. Nice idea in concept, but terrible as far as trying to find something.
I persoanlly also really wish that the books would be more consistant. For example, Orcs of Golarion, in my opinion, had very little player material, or rather (and I don't mean this as insulting to the writter(s), didn't have much information or mechanics relevant to for a player, but seemed more along the lines of for GM's. That may have just been my impression, but it seemed much more like a "what to expect from antagonist NPC's" and "what your player might learn if they adventure around orcs" guide than a Players Guide for Orcs/Half-Orcs.
Additionally, I would really like some of the older books to be Updated. Elves of G, Taldor, and Osirion really stand out, in my opinion.
A much fairer amount of options for each class. Cut back on the Bard, Ranger, and Rogue (everything), less Wizard/Sorcerer spells, and less martial Prestige Classes (or rather ones that epitomize a nation but only for say martial classes like the Eagle and Hell Knights).
Lastly, some things I would like to see are concepts ("fluff" or ""crunch" that step outside the norm a little, but are still perfectly reasonable for the material). For example, no more Elven Wizard material, but rather lets see some Elven Paladin or Cleric or Barbarian ideas, Feats, Traits, or whatever. Maybe a neat "white necromancer" for Osirion (Divine and maybe Arcane, too). I personally would have much rather seen a Cleric Code of Conduct than a Paladin one for the deities, especially if it steps a little outside the noraml RAW for Clerics/Spells/Alignments (within reason) similar to how some books offer additional Divine spells for specific faiths. That's something I want to see much more of, personally.
|
|
[...]
I suppose I'm wondering something to this effect: are these sections effective in collaborating the rules bits of these books in logical locations that are easy to find and present the information in a way that is useful to the players? What do other people think about shrinking other sections to expand others such as in the case of books that would be more combat- or magic-focused?Continue to weigh in on other matters that interest you, of course; all the feedback is great so far!
I like the sections organizing the rules bits. Please, never again the mishmash of the Andoran and Qadira books. I don't mind the total quantity of crunch varying, but please let it be conveniently organized.
|
|
At the risk of being repetitive...
I really did not enjoy Orcs of Golarion, and that was the book in the line I had been most excited about before it was released. For a book that was ostensibly for players, it seemed more about discouraging players rather than opening up possibilities. Making a player's guide for a race and then selling them hard as Always Chaotic Evil just doesn't feel right, especially when it could have covered a range of possible cultures and put a fresh new spin on orcs like what has been done with gnomes and halflings. A Companion book focusing on races should at least have some flavor support and advice for players that want to play something other than CE. The goblins book at least had a little, but the orc book, and I'm afraid that it'll be the only orc book we ever get for Pathfinder, had nothing for people that wanted good or neutral orcs. If we get more Companions for "monster" races, please don't let them repeat the mistakes of the Orcs book. (and please let us have another orc book that opens up some wider possibilities in the future!)
Less cleaving to always-evil monoculture stereotypes for those races, and more options and possibilities. After all, not everyone wants their good X to be a Drizzt-style "lone rebel against his evil kin". Some players want a non-always-evil cultural option to pull from, and some want backstories that don't have to be rooted in tragedy.
Going back further, "toxic" player advice like what was suggested in Elves of Golarion regarding their attitudes towards half-orcs is something I hope is gone for good. That little segment just seemed like a license to grief, like the roleplaying advice for Spellscales and Kender.
I don't really mind repeated content from the other lines to a degree, as these books are meant for players.
And a big +1 for giving Aasimar their book as well, especially if they get the same treatment Tieflings got in their Council of Thieves article. The big stereotype that hurts that race's popularity was what was shoved onto them in 3.x: the idea that they're all bland pretty people. Let them have the same wild range of possibilities tieflings have in terms of nature and appearance. After all, look at the variety amongst celestials out there. That alone offers a ton of alternate physical features to choose from.
I'd like the Player Companion line to have a slower release schedule and twice the thickness.
Put Aasimar and Tieflings in one book that's 64 pages, and spend twice as long working on it. (For example, I know the tiefling book is already on the schedule so this is just an example.)
I also like when the crunch is centrally located rather than having one or two items of crunch on each page.
I want a "Races of" book for dhampirs and one for changelings. (Or put them both in one book if the book size gets doubled.)
I really wish dhampirs counted as humans for the purpose of picking human regional traits, but I don't think that's a complaint with the Companion line.
If the page-count of the companion line is changed, please change it after there are an even number of companions in print, preferably a multiple of ten.
|
|
Put Aasimar and Tieflings in one book that's 64 pages, and spend twice as long working on it. (For example, I know the tiefling book is already on the schedule so this is just an example.)
Please don't. I hope that Aasimars are kept as far away from the Tiefling as possible. I am all for the rest, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, the companions don't speak to me that much. I get them, I leaf through them, then that's about it. Sometimes my players ask to borrow one relevant to them but I often find they didn't read it afterwards.
To me, they just don't give you much good actionable player information. The Cheliax book was a good example. It was mainly stuff you already knew if you had read any other relevant materials, and didn't really give much good specific grist to players for their PCs. It tended to say over and over again in many different ways "You like slavery!" and "Asmodeus, at least kinda!" But in terms of "I want to make a character who has more Chelaxian about him that those 2-3 major traits," or even "as a GM I want to run an adventure set in Cheliax, what makes things look/feel different from everywhere else?" (again, besides Asmodeus and slaves). Perform this exercise - go through a PC and cross out every sentence that does not add something new (is a restatement of something already said, or is blazingly obvious and doesn't need to be said) or isn't really useful to a player and see what you have left. Much of that is really more GM-focused than PC-focused.
They are also not written in an engaging tone, by and large. I would think the point of a 32 pg players guide is to be extremely gripping; to fire people's imagination with ideas and images and not just be a fake textbook. More Vornheim and less Britannica. Maybe use some fiction; I got a lot more gameable fluff out of 32 pages of Prince of Wolves setting-wise than the 32-page Cheliax book despite it being "for reference".
|
|
I have to say, the companions don't speak to me that much. I get them, I leaf through them, then that's about it. Sometimes my players ask to borrow one relevant to them but I often find they didn't read it afterwards.
...
They are also not written in an engaging tone, by and large. I would think the point of a 32 pg players guide is to be extremely gripping; to fire people's imagination with ideas and images and not just be a fake textbook. More Vornheim and less Britannica. Maybe use some fiction; I got a lot more gameable fluff out of 32 pages of Prince of Wolves setting-wise than the 32-page Cheliax book despite it being "for reference".
I agree with these two paragraphs completely, especially 'more Vornheim and less Britannica.'
I have to say, the companions don't speak to me that much. I get them, I leaf through them, then that's about it. Sometimes my players ask to borrow one relevant to them but I often find they didn't read it afterwards.
To me, they just don't give you much good actionable player information. The Cheliax book was a good example. It was mainly stuff you already knew if you had read any other relevant materials, and didn't really give much good specific grist to players for their PCs. It tended to say over and over again in many different ways "You like slavery!" and "Asmodeus, at least kinda!" But in terms of "I want to make a character who has more Chelaxian about him that those 2-3 major traits," or even "as a GM I want to run an adventure set in Cheliax, what makes things look/feel different from everywhere else?" (again, besides Asmodeus and slaves). Perform this exercise - go through a PC and cross out every sentence that does not add something new (is a restatement of something already said, or is blazingly obvious and doesn't need to be said) or isn't really useful to a player and see what you have left. Much of that is really more GM-focused than PC-focused.
They are also not written in an engaging tone, by and large. I would think the point of a 32 pg players guide is to be extremely gripping; to fire people's imagination with ideas and images and not just be a fake textbook. More Vornheim and less Britannica. Maybe use some fiction; I got a lot more gameable fluff out of 32 pages of Prince of Wolves setting-wise than the 32-page Cheliax book despite it being "for reference".
+1
And a big +1 for giving Aasimar their book as well...
I think I'm starting to hear clapping. Not totally sure, though. ;P
If the page-count of the companion line is changed, please change it after there are an even number of companions in print, preferably a multiple of ten.
Oh, I know I'm going to regret this but I have to ask...
Please don't. I hope that Aasimars are kept as far away from the Tiefling as possible.
Something has to be a "STOP THE PRESSES!" caliber calamity for us to change the format or any top level specifics of a product we've already solicited and then listed here on the site. So no worries, Blood of Fiends will be a 32-pager.
I have to say, the companions don't speak to me that much...
Wow, got hit with a Favorite and everything. Noted. Thanks for the well thought out post Pirate Mueller.
If the page-count of the companion line is changed, please change it after there are an even number of companions in print, preferably a multiple of ten.Oh, I know I'm going to regret this but I have to ask...
What? It's just so much better when sets exist in even multiples. If you change the page count on the product line, you effectively create the 32-page set and the 64-page set (if page count is doubled). So I was merely suggesting that the 32-page book series should end on an even number, preferably a multiple of ten. I mean it would be weird if there were 27 32-page books. 30 would be better for a nice round set, for example. (I don't know how many books are presently in the Companion line.)
Please don't. I hope that Aasimars are kept as far away from the Tiefling as possible.Something has to be a "STOP THE PRESSES!" caliber calamity for us to change the format or any top level specifics of a product we've already solicited and then listed here on the site. So no worries, Blood of Fiends will be a 32-pager.
Yeah, I said the aasimar+tiefling book was just an example and I knew the tiefling book was already on the schedule. My suggestion was just to combine similar products into one book with a less frequent release schedule. Since tieflings are already on the schedule, I'd recommend doing aasimar before a page count change to the product line. Maybe a better example would have been dhampirs+changelings in a 64-page companion book?
My suggestion was just to combine similar products into one book with a less frequent release schedule.
They already only do 6 per year. I would hate to have to wait 4 months between player companion books.
It should be noted, I suspect these questions from Wes may be related, that it was mentioned during one of the big Cons that the Player Companion line would be moving to a monthly schedule. Which means they must be selling better than the module line already.
I would much rather have the books stay separated. I wouldn't object to them doubling in size, but I like the tight focus on topic.
|
|
Things I'd like to see more of (or at all);
2) More descriptions of heraldry, clothing styles, architectural styles, armor preferences, common foods and trade goods, etc. for regions or cultures detailed. Not just flavor, but the sort of flavor that's going to be relevant when I'm describing a group of Shoanti raiders and don't want to say 'They're Shoanti raiders,' or describing the contents of a plundered Varisian trading caravan and my brain locks up and I say, 'Uh, they were carrying turnips.' because I have no idea what crops are grown in Varisia.
3) More mechanical bits that are also flavorful. Traits are great for this, but feats and spells also can ooze regional or cultural flavor, if designed well. I'm not convinced that new weapons (such as those in Gnomes of Golarion) have been so successful, although I would love for a book on somewhere like Qadira or Osirion to detail what armors are like there. Do they wear the same heavy armors as everyone else? If they do not, do they have some regional alternate class ability to off-set their lack of heavy armor with a dodge bonus while unencumbered?
This last thing, IMO, is something that should have been addressed a long time ago, when Osirion and Qadira were being pushed as part of the 'big 5' nations for inclusion in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play, because, for the most part, any sort of factional flavor is utterly abandoned in favor of everybody just wearing whatever armor is mechanically best, regardless of whether they came from a desert or not.
4) The Companion line is the perfect place to include Golarion specific rules items that would normally go in some sort of 'Golarion Campaign Setting' or 'Players Guide to Golarion,' like 'all clerics in Golarion must have a diety.' Ten billion electrons wasted on threads about this topic, and half of the hair on James Jacob's head, could have been saved if it was just printed in a book somewhere, that players could read. I'm sure it's not the only thing in the Core Rulebook that might not apply 100% the same in Golarion, as well, and a Players Companion would be the best place for this sort of info.
I agree with most of what Set said, especially with number 2.
The one change I would like to see as well is the books to be bigger. Maybe not as big as the campaign books but bigger. Maybe 48 pages instead of 32. I often find my biggest let down with the line is it feels like to much was left out and I find wishing it had been a 64 page campaign book instead.
What?
I gotcha.
Yeah, I said the aasimar+tiefling book was just an example...
Also, totally gotcha, just wanted to make sure folks know. Especially with these threads so openly asking for suggestions, I don't want folks to be surprised by anything that's already well underway being different from any expectations.
|
|
2) More descriptions of heraldry, clothing styles, architectural styles, armor preferences, common foods and trade goods, etc. for regions or cultures detailed. Not just flavor, but the sort of flavor that's going to be relevant when I'm describing a group of Shoanti raiders and don't want to say 'They're Shoanti raiders,' or describing the contents of a plundered Varisian trading caravan and my brain locks up and I say, 'Uh, they were carrying turnips.' because I have no idea what crops are grown in Varisia.
I love almost everything you post, Set, but I'm going to disagree with you here.
I love the Volo's Guides. They were (and are) incredible tools for the GM, and I still regularly lift bits from these to add flavor to my game worlds. That said, this is the sort of information that GMs care about (and players who also GM). The majority of players, however, are going to be nodding off when they're looking at a list of foodstuffs available at a Numerian market.
Why? Because players don't care about this stuff until they experience it in play. They will 'ooh' and 'ah' if you can point out the heraldric symbols of their patron house, and their mouths will water as you describe the fine Varisian meal they are being served. These very same things will seem dead on the page to them, however, when there are no guarantees that they will appear at the table.
That said, I would love to see some Campaign Setting books in the style of a 'Pathfinder's Guide To' which provides this information for GMs who love to provide specific world detail. I just don't think that this information is appropriate for a line of products marketed towards your average player.
(1) As Gorbacz noted, the line between CS line and Companion line is still sometimes blurry.
(2) The 32 page format. Mostly because I'd just like more information, illustrations, etc. but also because a 32 page book has no spine and is therefore hard to find on my shelf. That may sound stupid, but as others have pointed out, we're already having to search through multiple books to pull out certain types of information. With 32-page books, even if I could consult an index to know exactly which book(s) I need to reference, I still have to make a search to find it/them. At any rate, bigger is better. If the only way to do this is to combine the "player focused" and "GM focused" product lines where they already overlap, fine. I never quite understood why Paizo wanted to maintain these as separate lines after printing a unified Core Rulebook, when most other RPGs have [unneccessarily, IMHO] separate rules for player and GM.
As far as what additional information should go into those extra 32 pages, Set nailed this one, so I'll just repeat him: More descriptions of heraldry, clothing styles, architectural styles, armor preferences, common foods and trade goods, etc. for regions or cultures detailed; the sort of flavor that's going to be relevant when I'm describing Shoanti raiders, etc.