|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But as long as supplemtary mechanics sell, they'll keep making 'em, right up until the system collapses under its own weight. It seems to be the connundrum of RPG publishers everywhere.
With apologies to BSG: All Of This Has Happened Before...and Will Happen Again.
"Pathfinder will fail to get off the ground. It will collapse in a year."
"Prediction: Paizo out of business by 2010. Sorry, you guys just are way over your head"
"There was, isn't, and won't be a 5E in works. Anybody who says otherwise is just plain dumb."
I'm adding Bugley's post to my "predicting future is a risky business" list :)
After experiencing the wonder of pathfinders bloat, at low to mid to high levels and after starting to hate a number of the classes. I am at present, trying to find a solution. This is what I came up with:
1) 3.5 classes (don't cry, read more)
2) one feat per level and one starting feat (high early customisation).
3) you can use those feats to buy into pathfinder class bonuses/abilities, if you wish. Levels and pre-reqs have to match up.
4) dodge made more useful and simplified. +1 dodge ac per feat, only lose when flat-footed. At level 9 all dodge bonuses are doubled.
5) the feat weapon finesse applies to one light weapon, and the dex mod now determines damage bonus with that weapon, not str.
6) Quick draw also allows the quick sheathing of weapons as well as their quick drawing.
7) the big one, on trial in this game for the first time. Weapons that you are proficient in, have special abilities. So axes damage shields and armour when they hit those instead of the target. Maces do small amounts of subdual damage when they hit armour or shields, swords allow you to easily adjust damage, ac and attack bonus on the fly, hammers and flails damage the enemies weapon as the fight goes on, polearms and spears have a variety of abilities concerning impalement and denying an opponent the ability to advance, and some special weapons ignore shield ac, give a bonus to sneak attack or give a boost to intimidate. Armour also has its own qualities, each type of armour has a merit (the party is favouring medium armour at present that is not breastplate).
8) breastplate armour is removed, lol.
9) weapon tech is tied to cultural regions/militias/the armies of kingdoms.
So to summarise it down, weapons and armour become more important and useful for specific situations, the classes are kept relatively simple, but you are given more feats and customisation options. so far, it is working a treat!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1
3.5Loyalist I havent played anything other than pathfinder and a small unsavory bit of 4e but what you say interests me.
I like what I hear because it allows melee to catch up a little to casters in the area of versatility.
Melee can do Some cool things but casters can adapt and use spells In mind blowing ways.
Also relevent post (kinda) I wish leadership feat was gone into more in core I took these feat my GM requested I change it because it caused a lot of complications. I'm not complaining though I can see his perspective.
Weapons contribute to versatility, more feats contribute to versatility, and the fighter still stays ahead in feats since bonus feats are far more rare in 3.5.
Spellcaster can indeed do as you say, and then they run out of their best, or run out of their spells after a few tough encounters, and they drag everyone down to rest. In a way my rules push more for a melee world. I even weakened bows a bit too, strengthened crossbows, but gave more choices in bow ammunition.
On leadership I remember one guy in our group really got into it, re-made it, then abandoned it. He hated the feat, I never really cared much, but I could see his criticisms. Another took it and abused it (yay, I am now a safe spellcaster behind my meat shields). Leadership the feat isn't the simple solution if you want to raise a small army or merc company. You still have to equip people, make choices, make leadership checks to do it right, or to do it on a larger scale. I never much cared for it, because what it more represents is charismatic leadership and attracting a coterie of followers or starting a brotherhood. A religion, a band, a troupe, that sort of thing. If you want to run a barony, an army, you need more, and in fact leadership may not be necessary. Money, a great intimidate or diplomacy, actual skill in battles and expertise in strategy can be far more important parts of "leadership".
If you wish to talk more Munkir and want some of my material, got steam or fb? More good times in games with new trial rules is good for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you propose they stay in business?
Adventure Paths, so many, many adventure paths.
And setting specific stuff.Adding extra setting neutral (and thus core) stuff seems to invite problems.
I like the Conan D20 system...but I would incorporate the Pathfinder Skill system in it if I ran it just because I like 1 skill point cost per rank and the +3 bonus to a class skill...so much better than 3.5.
I also like the Class Dodge / Parry Defenses and the fact armor absorbs damage rather than raising AC...It's a very lethel combat system and most combats will be over quickly.
But it isn't a setting for the power munchkin mages / sorcerors so it is hard to get a group together that wants to play a melee combat party of humans....to many Anime inspired drow katana wielding sorceror kensai wannabe nitwits out there.
to[o] many Anime inspired drow katana wielding sorceror kensai wannabe nitwits out there.
You think anime is the only (most common) inspiration to sorcery?? wth...
How do you propose they stay in business?Adventure Paths, so many, many adventure paths.
And setting specific stuff.Adding extra setting neutral (and thus core) stuff seems to invite problems.
Too narrow of a market. They won't survive off of modules, no matter how good they are written. A large number of groups don't play in Golarion so setting specific stuff has a limited audience as well.
The fact is that people want what Paizo is selling. More accurately, Paizo is selling what people want. People want more options for their characters and campaigns.
The business model works. It has worked this way for decades for every successful game company. The trick is to know the proper pacing for release of material and to know when you've capped out what you can/want from the system. That's when it's time for a new system. Then the cycle will continue.
You think anime is the only (most common) inspiration to sorcery?? wth...to[o] many Anime inspired drow katana wielding sorceror kensai wannabe nitwits out there.
NO...I just want to play a gritty Conan type gane but this never happens because there are always a few that want to play their Ninja Fairy or some other such BS...hard to find a group of people that all want to play a Conan or Game of Thrones type setting with little or no magic...at least available to the players. Mostly just us old geezers that grew up reading Robert E Howard, Karl Edward Wagner, etc
Drow should be killed not played
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you propose they stay in business?
By catering to their strength, which is adventure writing, NOT system design. Focus on the APs and Golarion, and reduce the RPG line to the occasional bestiary. The APs are Paizo's bread and butter. In my opinion, beyond the APG, the RPG line could have consisted of a bestiary every 2-3 years, and the system would be in a lot better place that it is now.
To the OP:
I like what Frank and "K" did with feats in Races of War: all the combat feats grant a base ability, then improvements at BAB +1, +6, +11, and +16. They consolidated pretty much all of the 3.5 feat chains into scaling feats this way. I tried to do much the same thing in Kirthfinder (scroll down to the combat feats).
How do you propose they stay in business?By catering to their strength, which is adventure writing, NOT system design. Focus on the APs and Golarion, and reduce the RPG line to the occasional bestiary. The APs are Paizo's bread and butter. In my opinion, beyond the APG, the RPG line could have consisted of a bestiary every 2-3 years, and the system would be in a lot better place that it is now.
They're in a business where "my ideas are better than yours" is a social norm. This isn't a bad thing--it just means they, and we, should expect "you're doing it wrong" arguments more often than not, and more often than other genres. And that these ideas should be taken with a grain of salt.
It's comparable to sports...the moms and dads on the sidelines. :D They get really, really wrapped up in what their kid is doing, they yell at the coaches, and say, "I can do it better!"
We gamers get really, really wrapped up in how "our" publishers are progressing, we yell at the designers, and say, "I can do it better!"
Of course "we" are right. "We" can do it better.
Yet, this is not always true. Sometimes it is, though most often the differences between large-scale publishing and demand-meeting differ from those at the home table.
|
They can't just aurvive on APs and Golarion specific books imo. The problem eith APs is that eventually a DM will want to make his own world and not want to rely on only Aps for adventures in their games. It's also a cost factor imo. Picking up all the modules in a AP plus map pack is a 120-140$ purchase. Which not every DM can afford to do. Producing just Golarion specifi material is something they should never stop doing yet not rely on. Not everyone wants to play in Golarion or use material from the setting. As well many PF players came from 3.5 where the majority imo want a certain level of support. Paizo also wants a profitable business. To do so they need to publish a certain level of support to pay bills and staff. They may have the good will of those who liked playing 3.5 except good will is not recognized as a form of currency by people and banks. With the added bonus of not having to use everything they publish. It's almost like because a certain segment of the gaming are impulse buyers and/or can't say no to their players they make seem like a crime for Paizo to publish newer material.
I think that bloat, of all types should be handled at the table not at PF corp. They want to get options out to the players that crave them. Just look how much goes on in the conversion/house rule threads. The are trying to bring 3.5 bloat into the PF family. These are people who are intrested in buy such product if done well. So I think that those that who value purity to the simple system over spat and additional rules content should make that determination at the table. This frees up those who want a lot of options. That said I think the start of this thread was less about feat bloat and more about making things that are feats currently more easily accessed for all characters leaving room for them to take feats that are more thematic and specialized.
You think anime is the only (most common) inspiration to sorcery?? wth...to[o] many Anime inspired drow katana wielding sorceror kensai wannabe nitwits out there.
NO...I just want to play a gritty Conan type gane but this never happens because there are always a few that want to play their Ninja Fairy or some other such BS...hard to find a group of people that all want to play a Conan or Game of Thrones type setting with little or no magic...at least available to the players. Mostly just us old geezers that grew up reading Robert E Howard, Karl Edward Wagner, etc
Drow should be killed not played
You're complaining about wanting to play a gritty low-magic setting when pathfinder is inherently a high-magic system? Why not just go play Conan or Game of Thrones (is there an rpg for that? Make it), since that is what you want to play. Don't try to make a system do what it's not meant to do, that makes players unhappy.
Btw, people want to play ninja fairies because you can do stuff like that in PF and not Conan.
Game of Thrones (is there an rpg for that? Make it)
There's at least two that have made it to print :)
|
|
Game of Thrones (is there an rpg for that? Make it)There's at least two that have made it to print :)
And, sticking to Pathfinder, if (unlike UnklBuck) you mostly like Game of Thrones for the politicking and atmosphere as opposed to degree of magic, Brevoy in Golarion is very Game of Thrones inspired on a number of levels.
You're complaining about wanting to play a gritty low-magic setting when pathfinder is inherently a high-magic system?
Why not complain about it? You seeming to claim that PF is necessarily something that it isn't. Running low-magic PF is relatively easy. IME, it's easier than running it as normal.
Alternatively, it sounds like you guys are just looking for a different kind of game than your players. It happens. You agree to disagree, and go your separate ways looking for someone who shares your style preferences.
Me? I like my magic. Sorcs are my favorite class. But I wouldn't try to force a low-magic preferring DM to run something for me, and I wouldn't try to force a mage into one of his games especially if he's already informed me he doesn't want magic (or magic of that kind of caliber) in the players' hands. I'd just politely inform him his game was not for me, thank him for his time, bid him a good day, and be on my way.
RE: The inevitable "But there is no one who wants to play X style": that's a risk any GM takes when he limits the options to suit a style other than straight-out-of-the-book. Them's the breaks.
You're complaining about wanting to play a gritty low-magic setting when pathfinder is inherently a high-magic system?Why not complain about it? You seeming to claim that PF is necessarily something that it isn't. Running low-magic PF is relatively easy. IME, it's easier than running it as normal.
Maybe in your experience, I can't say for that. But IME when Wizards, sorcerers, bards, and druids are abundant in a world where most decent (level 3-4) adventurers have at least a couple magical items on them at any given time, and where most cities/towns have multiple shops or a bazaar with at least a few magic items in them at all times or can have them commissioned with a request and be there in a day or two, that's pretty high-magic. And Golarion as a setting is high-magic.
You can certainly run Pathfinder as low magic, but the Golarion setting/Pathfinder system assumes multiple magic items after an early point in a characters career.
Alternatively, it sounds like you guys are just looking for a different kind of game than your players. It happens. You agree to disagree, and go your separate ways looking for someone who shares your style preferences.
Me? I like my magic. Sorcs are my favorite class. But I wouldn't try to force a low-magic preferring DM to run something for me, and I wouldn't try to force a mage into one of his games especially if he's already informed me he doesn't want magic (or magic of that kind of caliber) in the players' hands. I'd just politely inform him his game was not for me, thank him for his time, bid him a good day, and be on my way.
RE: The inevitable "But there is no one who wants to play X style": that's a risk any GM takes when he limits the options to suit a style other than straight-out-of-the-book. Them's the breaks.
That's the problem...I've been playing with the same group for 20+ years. We have 2 guys that DM regularly...they would love to play a gritty Conanesque type game...however their wives want to play the artsy fartsy Bard / Elf / Faerie types...Yet when campaigns end and we talk about a grittier campaign...well then no thank you.
Pathfinder is a good system and can easily be adapted to a low magic setting and I like the skill system better than any other 3.5 / 3.5 clone systems...I just get frustrated by the constant "High Magic, Teleport everywhere, Save or Die BS"...I want a game where the heroes stand in a field of blood surrounded by the bodies of friends and foes after a epic battle...not Fireball..save or burn BS.
But as long as supplemtary mechanics sell, they'll keep making 'em, right up until the system collapses under its own weight. It seems to be the connundrum of RPG publishers everywhere.
With apologies to BSG: All Of This Has Happened Before...and Will Happen Again.
"Pathfinder will fail to get off the ground. It will collapse in a year."
"Prediction: Paizo out of business by 2010. Sorry, you guys just are way over your head"
"There was, isn't, and won't be a 5E in works. Anybody who says otherwise is just plain dumb."
I'm adding Bugley's post to my "predicting future is a risky business" list :)
Which prediction? The bloat has already happened.
Is it profitable? Sure thing. That's why most RPG companies do it. I, however, much preferred Paizo's days of being focused on adventures, setting material, and accessories, rather than rules.
As for the system collapsing under its own weight: For me, it already has. The nearly endless proliferation of rules options that add no value to my experience are a big turn-off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's bloat for you is "still not enough options" for me. And the adventures, setting material and accessories are of usual quality, so I don't see a problem.
When I pick-up an adventure path that cannot be run with just the CRB and Bestiary (see: Jade Regent), then the value of that product (for me) is greatly decreased. Paizo differentiated itself (again, for me) via great stories and characters (which are in short supply), not wholly average D20 mechanics (which are decidedly NOT in short supply). YMMV, but I'd appreciate it if you quit branding me as some kind of heretic for expressing an opinion that differs from yours.
Alternatively, it sounds like you guys are just looking for a different kind of game than your players. It happens. You agree to disagree, and go your separate ways looking for someone who shares your style preferences.
Me? I like my magic. Sorcs are my favorite class. But I wouldn't try to force a low-magic preferring DM to run something for me, and I wouldn't try to force a mage into one of his games especially if he's already informed me he doesn't want magic (or magic of that kind of caliber) in the players' hands. I'd just politely inform him his game was not for me, thank him for his time, bid him a good day, and be on my way.
RE: The inevitable "But there is no one who wants to play X style": that's a risk any GM takes when he limits the options to suit a style other than straight-out-of-the-book. Them's the breaks.
That's the problem...I've been playing with the same group for 20+ years. We have 2 guys that DM regularly...they would love to play a gritty Conanesque type game...however their wives want to play the artsy fartsy Bard / Elf / Faerie types...Yet when campaigns end and we talk about a grittier campaign...well then no thank you.
Pathfinder is a good system and can easily be adapted to a low magic setting and I like the skill system better than any other 3.5 / 3.5 clone systems...I just get frustrated by the constant "High Magic, Teleport everywhere, Save or Die BS"...I want a game where the heroes stand in a field of blood surrounded by the bodies of friends and foes after a epic battle...not Fireball..save or burn BS.
The problem is most "Gritty Low Magic" games are either horribly unbalanced or boring as sin.
A. No or Little magic takes away about 80% of your monsters and 2/3rds of the classes away. Have fun fighting the same mobs... over and over and over.
B. No ability to heal makes for very short adventuring days and you better have back up characters because there is no coming back.
C. Throw the CR system out the window for what little there is left to throw at the group. You will be fighting things a few CR's below what you normally fight. Sound epic to you yet?
D. After you gain a couple thousand gold... you might as well throw the rest away because you have zero things to spend it on unless your DM provides you with a money sink. And loot comprises of lots and lots of masterwork weapons and armor and not much else... fun!
Its sounds good but in practice most low magic campaigns are just not well suited for PF/3.5. The game is build on the assumption you have magic in the world. The last two Low Magic campaigns I took part in made me want to tear my eyes out. And its not BS... its high fantasy. Its classic D&D. There are other systems that appease low magic. PF just doesn't imo.
I removed a couple posts. You should be able to have a disagreement without the venom.
Nice thread hijacking there.
How did a conversation on which feats could be rolled in to class abilities turn into "Paizo needs to change their entire business model"?
Back to the original topic:
Even if you don't roll those feats into regular or class abilities, I would love to see them rolled into archetypes. You could either give them as free feats or write something like: "The duelist archetype switches Dex for Str on To Hit rolls."
If I had my absolute choice however, I'd let each class use virtually any attribute as a base attribute. You could have strong fighters, quick fighters, smart fighters or wise ones.
Additionally why do wizards, clerics, sorcerers and fighters all get 2 skill points + Int bonus. It leaves everyone other than wizards either knowing which street they live on, which year their country was founded or how to scare someone.
More skill points for all!
Ok Darkwing Duck, I will not argure about why I think the feats are in a reasonable range, but we are both free to use what we chose to from the books and change what we feel is needed in them to suit our games.
I think that feats are a nice system to use to make a charater that fits what you desire. There are feats that are likely poor choices for many char. but may have a use.
Feats were introduced as the first step to taking a game system which had no way to tell Fighter A from Fighter B into something closer to GURPs or World of Darkness without requiring you to take actuarial courses. It was a great step forward, and it's still quite useful. It's easy enough for new players to grasp without overwhelming them, and varied enough for them to become pretty good before they start chafing at restrictions.
It sounds like since you're a veteran now, the problems are obvious and the restrictions are strangling. Typical games don't challenge you. Standard adventures all feel bland, like eating a dry salad after taking a confectioner's tour. You want more, and feel the standard palate of feats are just stepping stones to greater glories.
Go for it.
You've outgrown basic assumptions. Pathfinder will now need to flex a bit to match your skill, but it can still do so as long as you recognize that the Core Rulebook is just suggestions to you now.
The thing is- everything else is quite adequate for the majority. It's natural to want to share your enthusiasm, but you're talking about pushing things to epic levels as a basic tenet. Someone else is talking about making weapons and armor different in all sorts of ways. I introduce non-gamers to the hobby on occasion, and such options would just overwhelm them. (I've done it before.) It's not for everybody, and some just won't get it. If you really want to share your changes, you could probably find a venue labeling them as "Expert's Pathfinder" or the like, and find like-minded individuals. Putting forward this sort of thing without a disclaimer makes it sound like it's a fit for everybody, which it isn't. Much like dry salad.
4.) Dimensional Agility
Even if you DID give every monk the dimensional agility feat it's still a tremendously useful feat for any full or half caster character with the ability to cast Dimension Door. Not to mention the beginning of a fabulous chain of abilities.
I just fix the problem by giving everyone a feat at every level. It really doesn't change the balance all that much and gives everyone more freedom to customize their characters. Everyone wins.
What about allowing players to "buy" feats with experience points?
it's still a tremendously useful feat for any full or half caster character with the ability to cast Dimension Door.I'm not sure that's true. For one thing, they aren't going to be able to use it all that often. It seems very special purpose for casters.
I just played a bard who used it all the time. It's really useful for getting around terrain or attacking a creature higher up. Plus once you can d-door as a charge and get a full-round attack it gets pretty sweet.
Alternatively, it sounds like you guys are just looking for a different kind of game than your players. It happens. You agree to disagree, and go your separate ways looking for someone who shares your style preferences.
Me? I like my magic. Sorcs are my favorite class. But I wouldn't try to force a low-magic preferring DM to run something for me, and I wouldn't try to force a mage into one of his games especially if he's already informed me he doesn't want magic (or magic of that kind of caliber) in the players' hands. I'd just politely inform him his game was not for me, thank him for his time, bid him a good day, and be on my way.
RE: The inevitable "But there is no one who wants to play X style": that's a risk any GM takes when he limits the options to suit a style other than straight-out-of-the-book. Them's the breaks.
That's the problem...I've been playing with the same group for 20+ years. We have 2 guys that DM regularly...they would love to play a gritty Conanesque type game...however their wives want to play the artsy fartsy Bard / Elf / Faerie types...Yet when campaigns end and we talk about a grittier campaign...well then no thank you.
Pathfinder is a good system and can easily be adapted to a low magic setting and I like the skill system better than any other 3.5 / 3.5 clone systems...I just get frustrated by the constant "High Magic, Teleport everywhere, Save or Die BS"...I want a game where the heroes stand in a field of blood surrounded by the bodies of friends and foes after a epic battle...not Fireball..save or burn BS.
I run my games, and have run pathfinder games, as more low magic. Making melee and rogues far more common than spellcasters. I also run the adventures away from civilised areas, because they are in less need of adventures. The hunt is out there, in the wilderness.
Current game, lowish magic, but adventurers have a high chance of running into certain agents that do use plenty of magic. Paladins, clerics, sorcerers, etc. It is good to have representation, but not to make everyone a damn elven wizard (curses).
Another game I was in for a bit, chap went magic overload. Paladins and clerics were extremely common because there were multiple faith wars going on at any one time, and wizards were the merchant classes.
lots of stuffI've got no problem with feats. There are, however, a lot of things that are feats that shouldn't be.
The take away was that what you are looking for isn't a "Basic" RPG, which I classify Pathfinder as. Your level of expertise, the sorts of things you describe wanting to do, really are beyond the pale. Pathfinder can do it with house rules, but just as you are looking to dance across an incoming hail of arrows, a similar vocal minority advocates freezing character advancement at 6th level.
You see the game (feats, in this specific case, but it's entirely likely that later on other aspects will bug you as well) as being too low-power to be satisfying. They see the game as being too high-power to be satisfying. Your solutions both work, and both are equally valid in your respective scenarios. The way you are putting it forward makes it sound like you expect everyone to be receptive to this, that it should be boxed in the basic game. Not everyone is going to "see reason." If you want more positive or outright constructive feedback instead of back-and-forth defense of assertions, you should look at what TOZ and Kirth Gersen did with Kirthfinder.
Edit: Need to learn to spell people's usernames correctly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I work in software. There is no greater "my ideas are better than yours" industry. But, at the end of the day, the customer is always right.
<berserkbutton>
FSM, if I never hear that phrase again, it'll still be too soon.
"The customer is always right" is, and always has been, a load of crap. It places the dollar on a pedestal and everything else be damned. Paizo has no obligation to satisfy you. They are not your client. They make what they want to make, and we buy it or don't as we like. The goal for both, at the end of the day, is to game and have fun. Otherwise, I'm sure they could make quite a bit more money doing something else.
If you aren't having fun with the system, there's a built-in method for fixing that--change the system! Nobody is stopping you from handing out feats like candy or rewriting Core from scratch. Ask <b>TriOmegaZero</b>; from what I can see, he's been pretty busy on that front, and more power to him. If you aren't in PFS, the sky's the limit!
If you're complaining for PFS reasons, well, that's a shame, but in the end PFS is just another group--a really big one--with its own set of rules that (mostly) coincides with RAW. There are other groups. Go out and find one, or start one. Unless you live in Population: Tire, chances are there are half a dozen people in your area wondering why they can't find anybody that games.
Change the system until it's goodrightfun for you. But the sense of entitlement folks like you exhibit in these threads is not conducive to anybody having a good time. It's the reason people get fed up with a job (or a whole industry) and quit. In short, stop whining.
"The customer is always right." The hell with that.
</berserkbutton>
Why aren't people who don't like the "feat bloat" playing the game they want to play instead? If you don't want more than the APG, don't use it! Nothing prevents you from playing without anything more. Don't come here telling us we can't have our options because you don't like it.
If you want to play amateur game designer, do it. Nobody is stopping you. I wouldn't play in your games, considering some of the armchair designing I've seen from some of you that don't mesh with my play style, but nobody will care about that. Just don't tell me Paizo doesn't make good games, because I know they do.
Paizo doesn't make good games.
There, I told you. :P
Did somebody say something? Could have sworn... nah, must've been a gust of hot air. :P