In the back of pretty much every Player Companion are several sub-articles, typically divided into Combat, Faith, Magic, and Social.
The inspiration behind these - obvious for long time Paizo readers - was the Class Acts section of Dragon magazine, the section with the mandate that no matter what class you play you'll find something (at least tangentially) useful for your class. We felt it was important to keep this mandate for the Players Companions, thus the four sub-articles you see in the back of each.
You've been seeing these for a few years now so: Love these? Hate these? Does it depend from on volume to the next? Do you like the idea but dislike the implementation? Do the names make sense to you? (Do you get that Combat is for fighter guys, Faith is for religious characters, Magic is for arcane spell casters, and Social is for roguish types?)
What do you think?
I think that it would be simpler just sort mechanics by archetypes/feats/spells/gear.
How would be a enchantment spell that is accesible to bards, clerics and sorcerer/wizards be placed? Faith? Magic? Social?
I think they are fine as a baseline, but not needed for every book. Each player's companion is already a short folio piece anyway, the sections should flow organically from the topic.
I certainly think you should keep in mind having something useful for each type of character, but a rigid article structure seems unnecessary for a book of this size.
|
I'm divided on it. On one side, I like the concept, and sometimes the presentation. On the other, it really doesn't seem to do the Class Acts idea all that well. What I mean is, PF seems to offer a lot more stuff for some classes and concepts that for others. The vast majority of the Faith sections, for example are either "fluff" or really not for classes of "faith" at all. Compare to the Combat section, almost 100% mechanics, from Prestige Classes, Feats, Weapon Tricks, to Traits.
In my opinion, Wizards, Fighters, Rogues, and Bards get a lot more material, especially material that nudges them into something cool and they really couldn't normally do without than any other classes. Clerics and Monks seem to get the least.
Social seems to ride the middle. Sometimes it is just full of Traits, Feats, or interesting NPC's, and sometimes it is purley "fluff" material (mostly for the DM at that).
I'd actually like, after thinking about it, for Faith was turned to Divine and Magic was turned to Arcane.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the layout but am not fond of the material. What I mean is that I agree with some of the above posters about the lack of material for certain classes, the overabundance for others, and sometimes the complete uselessness of some of the material to a player.
Each category should provide fluff and crunch for that area for every type of character. Examples:
Combat: This should have feats, traits, gear, etc. relating to combat. Making it funner, easier, better, etc.
Faith: This should have feats, traits, gear, etc. relating to faith. It should have new domains, spells relating to deities, special deity weapons, etc.
Magic: This should have the same stuff as above for magic. It should have new spells, power components, items like special scrolls, wands, staves, etc.
Social: This should again have the same kind of stuff but for social uses. Traits, feats, new skill uses, secret languages, body language, etc.
Of course all of it would be relating to the material the book is about. I just feel that making the categories for specific classes really limits what you can write and include.
Here is an example of what you could do for a book about Kobolds:
COVER
FLUFF ABOUT KOBOLDS AND THEIR SOCIETY
COMBAT: Kobold weapons, special Kobold fighting styles
FAITH: Kobold deities, a set of magic items representing one of the deities
MAGIC: What kind of spells Kobolds like, new kobold spells for all casting classes
SOCIAL: Discussion about the Kobold language, new skill use of Linguistics for talking in a special form of Kobold body language
BACK COVER
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
As I mentioned on the previous thread, I am fine with the names of the sections, but would prefer that they not be a mandated 2 page section for each in every companion. Some companions should have only some of these, and other companions should have all 4 categories, but with different page numbers. As an example, Adventurer's Armory could have had the entire section on new weapons and armor be in the combat section, along with new fighting style feats, and had some of the other equipment like MW skill sets, backpacks, etc be under social (?), and not have a faith or magic section at all (or maybe put the alchemical items under magic).
The various faiths of series would obviously have a much larger section for faith, but might not need a magic section and only have 1 page of combat for a few faith specific feats or fighting styles.
I'm personally not a huge fan, but I dont see any huge problem with keeping them either.
I like that division of the sections for flavor material, but I would prefer mechanical material to be grouped by mechanic-type instead (Feats, Spells, Equipment and Magic Items, Class Options [archetypes, prc's, etc]).
However, I realize that many of those sections would be empty or near-empty for several of the Companions, so the current split is a good compromise. I would like equal amounts of flavor material for each section, though!
So say these four sections went away and you pick up the hypothetical Player's Companion: Monstrous Liaisons and flipping through, there's tons of great stuff for most of the classes, but nothing particularly useful or aimed at rogues. How do you feel about that?
Then what if, two months later the only slightly less hypothetical Player's Companion: Deadly Bakers of the Inner Sea comes out, and this time there's totally good stuff for rogues, but not clerics. How do you feel about the line at this point?
So say these four sections went away and you pick up the hypothetical Player's Companion: Monstrous Liaisons and flipping through, there's tons of great stuff for most of the classes, but nothing particularly useful or aimed at rogues. How do you feel about that?
Then what if, two months later the only slightly less hypothetical Player's Companion: Deadly Bakers of the Inner Sea comes out, and this time there's totally good stuff for rogues, but not clerics. How do you feel about the line at this point?
In principle, I dont see any problem in a theme being more appropriate to some classes than others. Taking your first hypothetical at face value, it would probably look a little odd if there really were useful stuff for most of the classes but not rogues. However, I wouldnt see any problem if that suited the nature of the title - I wouldnt have a problem with a player companion focussed almost exclusively on spellcasters (for example).
The selling point for me (or what it is that piques my interest and makes me enjoy the book anyhow - I'm a sale already) is the overarching theme. Goblins of Golarion was great, Gnomes of Golarion held no interest - I dont care whether all classes get equal consideration in Goblins of Golarion, as long as the 'goblinny' ones do.
I'd venture that it's probably still fairly important (to players and GMs) that you give at least some consideration to all the various classes in a Player's Companion product. Because, as you indicated, if someone's been itching to play a rogue and they want to be from Cheliax because of all the great world flavor they picked up from the campaign setting (or their GM's description of it) and the Player's Companion for Cheliax has nothing in it detailing what makes rogues different and/or special in that nation, they're probably going to feel pretty letdown. At least, I would...
My recommendation might be to take a page from how you guys do the Player's Guides for the APs. Maybe not to the n-th degree of detailing every single race, core class, and base class possibility. But, at least hit the major ones (i.e., if gunslingers, ninja, and samurai don't apply, obviously don't include them). That's far more likely to give players what they need to hang their hat on as they create characters using the information for a particular region, species, religion, etc.
I'd also think this product line would be the premiere place for you to introduce Golarion-specific prestige classes. Obviously, avoid the glut and don't do too many of those. But, realistically, we know prestige classes are out there. Most of them should be very world-specific to ensure the "prestige" is in that particular class. But, even if you don't focus overly much on always introducing a new prestige class for a "Faiths of..." or "Race of..." or "Golarion region" Player's Companion, you could still do something similar by exploring what it means for various archetypes to show up in the core and base classes according to whatever subject matter you're exploring.
I think that would probably work fairly well for you. And, as some folks have suggested, layer in a bit of in-character dialogue as lead-in text, sidebar commentary, etc. to give players (and the GM) a feel for how to portray those types of characters in the game. That should help fire the imagination and widen the portrayal of Golarion that much more.
Just my two cents,
--Neil
Would you consider a reworking of the "Persona" section? I think there's a lot of untapped potential.
I just had a thought, cruising through the enormous pile of threads on this subject... (which are seeing some rather exciting ideas be tossed around.)
First, I want to say that some of these entry ar full of great ideas. (I especially loved "Coppertongue" from the Gnome companion...). I'd just question their purpose in their current incarnation. Statblocks, to me, seem infinately more a GM resource. The chances of creating a character of that specifc level, wealth, point buy etc. are fairly slim, so for the most part, they are purely a font for ideas.
James points out time and time again that stat blocks take up a lot of space. I say do away with it, and try to fill this section with character inspiritation. Do away with the crunch entirely, and squeeze in some character ideas, backstorys and personalities. Something like what the Adventure Path articles on deity's had. I'm currently playing an elf tangentially based on one of Calistria's priests. He just had a couple of sentances to him, but I loved the idea of a spiteful elf roaming around and sleeping with the daughters of everybody who wronged him twenty years ago...
Theres some real potential for inspiration here. Inspiration that can easily fit into the 3-4 pages that this section takes up.
How to construct it, however, I'm not so sure. You could, on one hand, do away with the "personalities" entirely, and devote the pages purely to ideas and "constructing your persona". On the other hand, the characters, names, and personalities thus far have been great, and they'd be easy to squeeze into your character's backstories. (especially in the location-based companions).
Just a few thoughts, hope they're constructive.
|
Would you consider a reworking of the "Persona" section? I think there's a lot of untapped potential.
I just had a thought, cruising through the enormous pile of threads on this subject... (which are seeing some rather exciting ideas be tossed around.)
First, I want to say that some of these entry ar full of great ideas. (I especially loved "Coppertongue" from the Gnome companion...). I'd just question their purpose in their current incarnation. Statblocks, to me, seem infinately more a GM resource. The chances of creating a character of that specifc level, wealth, point buy etc. are fairly slim, so for the most part, they are purely a font for ideas.
James points out time and time again that stat blocks take up a lot of space. I say do away with it, and try to fill this section with character inspiritation. Do away with the crunch entirely, and squeeze in some character ideas, backstorys and personalities. Something like what the Adventure Path articles on deity's had. I'm currently playing an elf tangentially based on one of Calistria's priests. He just had a couple of sentances to him, but I loved the idea of a spiteful elf roaming around and sleeping with the daughters of everybody who wronged him twenty years ago...
Theres some real potential for inspiration here. Inspiration that can easily fit into the 3-4 pages that this section takes up.
How to construct it, however, I'm not so sure. You could, on one hand, do away with the "personalities" entirely, and devote the pages purely to ideas and "constructing your persona". On the other hand, the characters, names, and personalities thus far have been great, and they'd be easy to squeeze into your character's backstories. (especially in the location-based companions).
Just a few thoughts, hope they're constructive.
Errrr no, please no NPC statblocks in a player-oriented product. The final NPC in a Companion book (the "alchemist" in Armory) was such a waste of space that if I ever see a statblock in a Companion again I'll just go muarraghrage and throw the book away. Or something.
Errrr no, please no NPC statblocks in a player-oriented product. The final NPC in a Companion book (the "alchemist" in Armory) was such a waste of space that if I ever see a statblock in a...Would you consider a reworking of the "Persona" section? I think there's a lot of untapped potential.
I just had a thought, cruising through the enormous pile of threads on this subject... (which are seeing some rather exciting ideas be tossed around.)
First, I want to say that some of these entry ar full of great ideas. (I especially loved "Coppertongue" from the Gnome companion...). I'd just question their purpose in their current incarnation. Statblocks, to me, seem infinately more a GM resource. The chances of creating a character of that specifc level, wealth, point buy etc. are fairly slim, so for the most part, they are purely a font for ideas.
James points out time and time again that stat blocks take up a lot of space. I say do away with it, and try to fill this section with character inspiritation. Do away with the crunch entirely, and squeeze in some character ideas, backstorys and personalities. Something like what the Adventure Path articles on deity's had. I'm currently playing an elf tangentially based on one of Calistria's priests. He just had a couple of sentances to him, but I loved the idea of a spiteful elf roaming around and sleeping with the daughters of everybody who wronged him twenty years ago...
Theres some real potential for inspiration here. Inspiration that can easily fit into the 3-4 pages that this section takes up.
How to construct it, however, I'm not so sure. You could, on one hand, do away with the "personalities" entirely, and devote the pages purely to ideas and "constructing your persona". On the other hand, the characters, names, and personalities thus far have been great, and they'd be easy to squeeze into your character's backstories. (especially in the location-based companions).
Just a few thoughts, hope they're constructive.
Huh? They did away with these? Well, go figure. It seems I'm a little out of touch. Well, yes. I dont think the statblock belonged in the product, but it was a decent ideas bank.
Speaking just as a fan and a subscriber. Those back page articles are the first things I look at when I get a new Companion and this often determines who eager I am to read through the rest.
Also, though I recognize there are some circumstances where it makes sense, as a general principle I prefer crunch in those articles over flavor. The main parts of the book are usually weighed very heavily towards flavor anyway.
So say these four sections went away and you pick up the hypothetical Player's Companion: Monstrous Liaisons and flipping through, there's tons of great stuff for most of the classes, but nothing particularly useful or aimed at rogues. How do you feel about that?
Then what if, two months later the only slightly less hypothetical Player's Companion: Deadly Bakers of the Inner Sea comes out, and this time there's totally good stuff for rogues, but not clerics. How do you feel about the line at this point?
That's not cool. I think it would be awesome if making sure that each of the four primary roles were addressed went more behind the scenes. Right now, it seems bizarre and forced sometimes. Here's a bunch of feats? There's a prestige class? What the heck is that one even all about (I'm looking at you, faith of halflings)?