|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, Sorcerers, having higher Cha, should probably be able to play that game themselves - convincing people to turn against those who are hunting them.
Given how 'noble blood' was a big deal for much of our history, a setting in which sorcery predated wizardry (and writing, in general) *and* was the purview of an elite set of very special bloodlines *and* was almost exclusively made up of charismatic people slick enough to sell slime to a snail, I could see it going exactly the opposite of the Blackmoor trend, with snooty elite sorcerer-nobles pooh-poohing those hoi-polloi with their books, studying until their eyes bleed in a vain attempt to match the powers that are the birthright of their betters.
A ruling caste of this-blooded or that-blooded sorcerers could easily regard wizards as upstarts, using their math and their research to try and cheapen what was meant to be an exclusive gift to the noble blooded families, and spreading it around to the lower classes.
The wizards, on the other hand, would see themselves as the great equalizing force, the rising tide of the perpetual underclass, seizing the powers once monopolized by very special bloodlines and making them available to the common man.
Thousand of years have passed, and most royal families are no longer dependent upon a branch of sorcery in the family tree (and are more likely to delegate that sort of thing to the royal advisor or court 'mage,' who is more likely to be a wizard than a sorcerer). Some sorcerers still talk big talk about the 'good old days,' when they ran the show, but they are a rarer thing now, with so many wizard's academies pumping out students from among the percentage of filthy peasants with enough brains to learn to read and write and mechanically ape the words and gestures of their sorcerous betters, stripping everything that was magical out of the practice of magic with their formulae and their calculations and their rote drudgery.
|
Why are power points a bad way to go, necessarily?
Conan uses PP, M&M Uses PP, World of Darkness uses PP, Classic Unisystem Uses PP, Final Fantasy uses PP, etc, and so do several other systems, and they work great;
I think its only a problem to use both PP & Vancian. Either you get too many top level spells, or not enough lower level spells, when compared to Vancian.
Personally I'd prefer to have to make a spellcasting roll, and not use points *OR* slots (and go with something like Ghosts of Albion), but thats neither here nor there.
You could just change the conversion rate between spell levels, to make it more expensive to grab extra top level spells, perhaps.
So, the question is, why don't you play those systems? I'm sure the companies can use the money. D&D is traditionally a Vancian game (the 4e abomination being the exception), and much of the traditional flavor, magically, hinges on that.
Seriously, if you don't like D&D and its suppositions, why would you play Pathfinder, which is made by people who like D&D?
|
|
Personally I'd prefer to have to make a spellcasting roll, and not use points *OR* slots (and go with something like Ghosts of Albion), but thats neither here nor there.
So, the question is, why don't you play those systems? I'm sure the companies can use the money. D&D is traditionally a Vancian game (the 4e abomination being the exception), and much of the traditional flavor, magically, hinges on that.
Seriously, if you don't like D&D and its suppositions, why would you play Pathfinder, which is made by people who like D&D?
I like D&D Just fine. The topic got onto Psionics, and I was trying to point out that power points aren't necessarily a terrible way to go, even if they aren't something I'd consider to be compatible with Vancian magic in the same party.
But I do play those systems. Ghosts of Albion (cinematic unisystem) comes from a tiny company, and they release books I'm interested in at a glacial pace (like one a year, or a bit slower). Conan is out of print, and the company no longer has the license. So I cant buy new books from them, they aren't being made anymore. But I bought the old ones, and I do use them. Vampire the Masquerade(cWoD), Mostly out of print, I already have most of the game line, and I'm waiting on the PoD copy of V20.
I also adapt subsystems from one system that I like to other systems, when I'm GMing. I do that all the time.
And yeah, I do like the magic System in Ghosts of Albion better, and like the lower magic - higher action feel of Conan a bit more than Pathfinder, but I don't want to GM all the time, and when it comes to playing, you're limited to what's available.There are no other Ghosts of Albion or Conan GMs in the Area.
Basically my options (as a player) are Pathfinder, 3.5, 4e, or Warhammer 40k RPG (Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, etc), and occasionally an nWoD game or a Deadlands game pops up. I dont care for Deadlands, or nWoD or WH40k or 4e all that much, having tried them. So If I'm playing, around here I'm generally looking at Pathfinder or 3.5 (unless I'm lucky and a GM is actually running something different for some variety).
And the fact that Vancian and PP aren't anywhere near my preferred magic systems isn't a dealbreaker for the game. Just because it's not my preferred game doesn't mean I dislike the game. And unlike my top two 'preferred games', I can occasionally find someone else to GM.
I've tried out alot of RPGs, and Pathfinder is (I'd say) tied for 3rd place in my preferences (with Vampire: the Masquerade), so I still end up having fun; though I often go with a non-magic character, or occasionally I just go with vancian casting anyways, and make a summoner or summoning wizard or something.
Yeah I have things I don't like about Pathfinder. No its not my absolute favorite RPG system. Yes I think some things in pathfinder were handled better in some other d20 game. That doesn't necessarily mean I dislike Pathfinder, however, which is a conclusion that you seem to have come to mistakenly.
Do I like playing Pathfinder? Yes. do I like running Pathfinder? Not by RAW, but with some houserules, and a few things adapted form other d20 variants (like a bit of trailblazer, a bit of arcana evolved, and a bit of conan, and some original stuff I came up with myself replacing some of the parts I dont care for in Pathfinder), its great.
I was pointing out the fact that, in gbonehead's case, he's the one doing the rejecting.Same concept from the opposite party. (the player)
DM: I do not want/allow those options.
Player: There are no options allowed.
The options still exist, but are not allowed. (You may note that I said exactly what you did, as in, we are in agreement.)
Not to necro the earlier part of the thread (well, okay, that's exactly what I'm doing but it's been a busy weekend), but I will freely admit that I'm restricting the options/rejecting other options/limiting the characters/whatever spin you wish to put on it.
However, that was exactly my point. Restricting options to materials X, Y and Z is quite clearly a GM's prerogative. Pretty much the only thing I do is GM, and I always restrict materials. Many GMs do so, probably most. I'm extremely open about what I allow, given that I run a 3.5e campaign and allow any official WoTC materials. But, I do restrict it to only WoTC materials and will continue to do so.
Thus, if there's going to be psionics in a campaign I run, they're going to be published by Paizo. I suspect I'm not alone in this regard.
Furthermore, with certain rare exceptions (and it's no coincidence that the Paizo folks have the same exceptions I do), Paizo modules and adventure paths only use official Paizo rules. So, if there's ever going to be psionic support in modules or adventure paths, I'm thinking it'll be using Paizo rules.
So it's not just due to restrictive GMs that people might want psionics from Paizo. Some people might like to see supported material with psionics as well.
What, specifically, would you like to see in Paizo adventure paths wrt psionics?
Personally, I'm indifferent to psionics. I think both 3.5e and Pathfinder were/are complicated enough without adding psionics too.
Ironic, isn't it, given my continual commentary about how it would be good if there were above-20 rules for Pathfinder? :)
|
|
Doesn't Dreamscarred Press have APs like that?
A quick check seems to have confirmed my suspicions.
Dreamscarred Press doesn't make APs.
So if you want Psionic focused APs, you're out of luck.
You might be able to find the odd module elsewhere, but I think youd have to find a way to string them together yourself.
One day, I would like a setting based on aberrant creatures, psionics and grafts. I SO would. Otherwise, psionics and I do not agree with one another.
Really, the original question was what Paizo is going to publish onward regarding classes, and it seems to be their decision not to go the way of the third edition splatbooks. I am grateful for this, the amount of options today is quite enough to keep track of. More options is nice, but also increases complexity and power level, thereby introducing far more headache for every DM, and the number of Nos given as answers to players asking Can I play a...?
Two decisions made during design of third edition were serious mistakes. First, every book should focus on selling to players, because, hey, there are more players than DMs. This means you get a massive, unhealthy focus on crunch. Fluff is only interesting to DMs, or nearly so, in my experience. It is also a question of setting secrets and stuff, and every campaign has at least one spolier maniac, right? Second, they felt making adventures was not lucrative enough (see first point) so they chose not to make many of them. I believe it is more properly seen as a case of making supporting material, like plastic ewoks and star wars lunch boxes to support the movies. At the end, third edition had done it all. Every sort of class book, most of them twice, with ever more convoluted rules, various add on magic systems, environments, races, even compendiums of said crunch. And when they ran out, the time had come for fourth edition. If they had given some thought to adventures and such, they could have kept the juggernaut going for a good while longer.
Which brings us to Paizo. They sell specifically to DMs, except the companion books as I understand, and they publish precisely those rules they need to keep making adventures and setting material. Three cheers, and here's hoping they can keep this strategy up.
|
|
I agree with Thalis - though not about the gunslinger, that class is icky.
I dont necessarily want more new classes (though there are likely one or two that would fit well), but I definitely want more options and archetypes for the existing classes.
And boomerangs that come back when you throw them!
This discussion is making no sense. You defend making psionics officially part of Pathfinder so that it can have some sort of unspecified support in APs.
My point is larger than psionics.
What I'm trying (and apparently failing :) to say is that there's plenty of people out there who will only use official Paizo material. I've seen players post about this ("My GM doesn't allow 3PP material") and GMs post about this (I'm one of 'em).
Basically, for anyone who places those constraints upon their game, there is currently no psionic support. Thus, if they want psionic support, they have to encourage Paizo to create something.
People can say all they want that "there is an option, you're just choosing not to use it," but that's basically equivalent to "you're doing it wrong." No, they're not doing it wrong. They're doing it exactly as they choose, and that's right.
Personally, psionics is low on my list. The only reason I use it in my campaign at all is because it's a challenge because I use the "psionics is different") rules. It's always felt like something bolted on the side to me, and if Paizo were to release a new compendium of rules about psionics, it would feel just as bolted on, since they'd have to either (a) ignore it in Golarion since there's no precedent or (b) retrofit it in somehow.
Which is quite different than all the super-science stuff which has shown up here and there from day one.
-----
Now, back on topic.
I don't personally think we'll see class-specific books like the Complete series, and I'm okay with that. It takes too long to develop and publish material for all the classes, which means some classes founder for a long time before getting support.
I much prefere the current way of having topical sourcebooks that support all (or many) classes.
"Ow! My eye hurts!"
"Maybe you should put your fork in your mouth, not your eye!"
"Don't tell me I'm doing it wrong!!"
I am confused about this post...
"Ow! My eye hurts!"
"Maybe you should put your fork in your mouth, not your eye!"
"Don't tell me I'm doing it wrong!!"I am confused about this post...
He's saying that sometimes someone is doing it wrong, and (maybe) saying by inference that anyone who establishes guidelines that they don't allow 3PP stuff at their table is doing it wrong.
/threadjack :)
|
|
I said nothing about "doing it wrong".
I was pointing out that sometimes a person can do something that they find painful and, if they don't like pain, they should stop doing what is painful.
Does that mean that they are "doing it wrong"? No, they might enjoy inflicting pain on themselves. But if they enjoy inflicting pain on themselves, then they should stop complaining that it hurts.
Its not Paizo's responsibility to design a fork that allows you to eat by stabbing yourself in the eye.
I like this position.
If you are limited by the "Only Paizo Materials" even though the 3pp was designed for Pathfinder, and no official stuff is on the way any time soon (and possibly ever), but you want Psionics; maybe you should change your restriction to allow the materials that support the content you want to use.
Unless of course, you want Psionics in PFS. Then youre Sh*t out of luck.
I don't care about convincing you to want it(Psionics), I want it, if enough people want it then we can get it. Just because it might exist in Pathfinder doesn't mean you have to use it, like all things other than the core book it is optional and an option I would like to see.
As long as they get rid of that stupid power point system I will be fine.
It does not exist as an official pathfinder product, i am not big on 3rd party products myself and i know a lot of DMs who do not use them at all.
I actually want a psion/psychic class and have psionic based archtypes for every class. In the case of Sorcerers it would be a bloodline of course but a bloodline is kind of an archtype to me anyway.
You are capable of changing your opinion on whether or not to use 3pp psionics rule. Why do you choose not to change your mind? (no judgement intended, the fact that you refuse to change your mind is something that I find myself unable to understand and, so, would appreciate an explanation).It does not exist as an official pathfinder product, i am not big on 3rd party products myself and i know a lot of DMs who do not use them at all.
I actually want a psion/psychic class and have psionic based archtypes for every class. In the case of Sorcerers it would be a bloodline of course but a bloodline is kind of an archtype to me anyway.
I think dragon78 is a different person from Gbone. If you want psionics bad enough there is a 3pp rules set.
I don't know if I want to tag on another rules set. I also view psionics as a cool niche in my game for places like Numeria, Deep sea, and Arkenstar. I would much rather see epic rules from Paizo rather than psionic rules.
If I ever need to use psionics I'll use Dreamscarred. If I work out my Vudrani campaign I might investigate Dreamscarred as well.
Well, if he was addressing me, it's easy. Because I'm the GM and I say so. Really, it's that simple.
I'm not a jerk. I'm a very player-friendly, expansive GM. But when I run games, I like to have good access to the rule set. Keeping a game to just Paizo Pathfinder materials keeps things in check. Not as much as you might think; there's a lot of Paizo material out there, but it does help.
* I don't have players scouring third party books trying to find that one feat/spell/1-level-dip that will make them uber-overpowered.
* I don't have to purchase even moar books. I buy plenty.
* I know that I (in theory) only have rules that have been considered, not only in themselves, but in how they relate to all other Paizo Pathfinder rules.
Now, for right now it's all a moot point. I run a combo 3.5e/Pathfinder game, and there are 3.5e psionics rules. They're used sparingly, but we do use them.
I also run a straight Pathfinder game. It's new players, they're in part one of Carrion Crown, and they don't give a rat's ass about psionics; they're happy with ranger and ninja and gunslinger and sorcerer and cleric. But if they asked about psionics, I'd simply say "there's no rules for psionics. If Paizo makes any, I'll let you know right away."
Right. And if it makes more sense to you, by all means, do it that way.
I'm a Paizo charter superscriber. I've backfilled all the Paizo non-module material that I don't have. As of now, I don't really purchase any third party material (Tome of Horrors is the sole exception), and given what I spend on Paizo stuff, I'm not likely to start soon.
What about me limiting the rules to Paizo rules (for my games) doesn't make sense?
|
Yeah, limiting allowed material to 'only official Paizo material' makes sense as an easy way to explain it to players, but refusing to allow material that you want to allow seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's not like all Paizo material is good, so while easy to use, a 'Paizo only' stance isn't a good metric for well-written stuff. Nor is it a good metric for fun, since you have already stated that it is preventing you from playing what you want.
Who, me? I'm not sure when I said I wanted psionics. Anyone who pays any attention to my posts knows it's epic rules I want :)
All I've ever maintained is that "our table uses Paizo-only rules" is a valid stance. Darkwing seems determined to get me to admit that it's not a valid position for a GM to take, and I'm not sure why he's so obsessed with making sure 3PP rules are allowed at every GM's table.
Yeah, I think so.
I'm just not willing to open the floodgates for rules any wider than they're already open; Paizo publishes an ungodly amount of material as it is.
|
The vast bulk of the class options in the rulebook line will remain the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat. We have no plans of continuing to put out hardcover rulebooks in this exact theme—one of our goals was to get all the class option books out first so that we COULD support them in the following years. You'll certainly see new class options appear now and then, but the focus of rulebooks going forward will be on things other than character classes.
That said, we DO plan on continuing to support the base classes in our Player's Companion, Adventure Path, and Campaign Setting lines!
Thank you very much. I don't want to keep up with a bunch of 4E style splat books. I love your adventures, and I love your regional and city guides. I think they expand and explore Golarion at a good pace. What I'd like to see less are books like the monster revisited books, save them for the Bestiaries. the faith books, and the inner sea magic books as well aren't needed in my opinion. I'd much rather see less rules and more fluff.
That being said, do what makes you money. In general I love your products, and you have great support for the game with the game mastery line.
Thank you very much. I don't want to keep up with a bunch of 4E style splat books.
I can't say that I understand this point of view. People can choose not to buy the rules books and only buy the products that they like. People can NOT choose to buy books that are not made. So the guy who wants more rules is out of luck if they stop making them, but if they keep making them then the guy who doesn't want them is in the exact same place... just don't buy them.
I know, I know... the point has been made before, but it really feels like someone saying that people who want more rules are having 'badwrongfun' and should not like it in the first place.
All that said, the reality is that it takes people to write books. If they are not writing rule books then they (presumably) would be working on more fluff content. But the thing is that it really depends on what is making money. If the fluff books don't sell as well (for example, all the people playing in their own world could care less about Golarion fluff, but can potentially use rules), then there isn't enough money to keep as many writers on, resulting in just less output rather than more people working on what you want. Conversely, if the rules are selling well then you have more money to put out the fluff books so you end up with more than you would have otherwise.
What I'd like to see less are books like the monster revisited books, save them for the Bestiaries. the faith books, and the inner sea magic books as well aren't needed in my opinion. I'd much rather see less rules and more fluff.
This I don't get either. The monster revisited books are all about adding the fluff and interest to the monsters. They are not more crunch. If you want fluff why ax these? If it is the beastiaries alone the monsters are closer to just stat blocks than fleshed out interesting creatures.
Same with the faith books. They make the gods into more than just a list of favored weapon and domains to choose from with a little fluff that describes them. Instead we learn about the church, aphorisms, etc., etc.
It just seems inconsistent with the request for more fluff and less rules. If I were a designer I would have no idea what you wanted.
Finally, we all vote with our pocket books and Paizo has no real choice but to listen to that vote. If the fluff stuff sells well, they will make more. If the crunch stuff sells well, they SHOULD make more. If they make fluff books with little bits of crunch thrown in and think that will make all the people who liked the APG, UC, and UM happy... I think they are in for a surprise... most of those people will see it as the part of the game they like is not being supported. If only there were a new game on the horizon promising the moon and that it would support their style of play... hrmm...
I don't think Paizo and Pathfinder are in any real danger from 5E (or whatever they deign to call it), as long as they keep doing what they have been doing (supporting people who want rules, adventures, and pure setting description in seperate products so people can pick and choose). If they decide there is enough support for those rules monkeys and just leave them be then they are saying, "We have enough of your gaming dollars, please spend them elsewhere." I think Paizo is smarter than that. But James' post kind of scares me a little there.
If nothing else, I would love to see a yearly product that comes out and compiles all those little rules bits found in various other products into one place for much easier use. Yeah, yeah, there is d20pfsrd... it doesn't help most of the time when I am sitting at a gaming table. Not to mention it is tough to just sit down and see the new stuff.
Think about it. I am a GM. I do NOT want my players buying all the adventure paths, but if that is where new feats, spells, etc. are going to be then it is encouraging them to do so. Is that really what GMs want? Sure Paizo would love it if everyone bought all their products equally, but I don't think they are counting on that to happen just because "there are enough class options out there now."
Anyway... I for one would be disappointed if we didn't continue to see rules heavy books. I LOVE the adventure paths... but that is not ALL I enjoy.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Thank you very much. I don't want to keep up with a bunch of 4E style splat books.I can't say that I understand this point of view. People can choose not to buy the rules books and only buy the products that they like. People can NOT choose to buy books that are not made. So the guy who wants more rules is out of luck if they stop making them, but if they keep making them then the guy who doesn't want them is in the exact same place... just don't buy them.
I know, I know... the point has been made before, but it really feels like someone saying that people who want more rules are having 'badwrongfun' and should not like it in the first place.
All that said, the reality is that it takes people to write books. If they are not writing rule books then they (presumably) would be working on more fluff content. But the thing is that it really depends on what is making money. If the fluff books don't sell as well (for example, all the people playing in their own world could care less about Golarion fluff, but can potentially use rules), then there isn't enough money to keep as many writers on, resulting in just less output rather than more people working on what you want. Conversely, if the rules are selling well then you have more money to put out the fluff books so you end up with more than you would have otherwise.
What I'd like to see less are books like the monster revisited books, save them for the Bestiaries. the faith books, and the inner sea magic books as well aren't needed in my opinion. I'd much rather see less rules and more fluff.This I don't get either. The monster revisited books are all about adding the fluff and interest to the monsters. They are not more crunch. If you want fluff why ax these? If it is the beastiaries alone the monsters are closer to just stat blocks than fleshed out interesting creatures.
Same with the faith books. They make the gods into more than just a list of favored weapon and domains to choose from...
My opinions are coming from an organized play perspective. I played AD&D back in the day but got back into it under 3.5's "Living Greyhawk". I played LFR for a while after the switch, but with splat book after splat book coming out, which were all allowed in organized play, meant as a judge you needed to keep up with all this material so you could understand what your players were doing. I got tired of it and dropped out, among other reasons.
rule after rule addition are not always not playtested well. Spells or feats can come out unintentionally overpowered when used in combination. which makes it harder to run games with an appropriate challenge to the players.regarding the monster revisited books, I don't need a 30 page book describing the background of maybe 5 or so monsters and variations. the 1 page entry in a bestairy is fine. the religion books are a mixed bag. I appreciate the information regarding the various golarion deities, but I think it really could have been either combined into one book, or have been added to the Inner Sea World Guide (which was an awesome book!)
No, they are already opened wide enough to allow all rules by Paizo.There's a big difference between all current rules by Paizo and all rules by Paizo (to include future rules). The latter opens the rule base further.
Ashiel, is that you? :-)
(And thank you TOZ, been a busy couple days)