|
Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a citation for this? I wouldn't have guessed these to be the best sellers.
P.S. Aranna pick up any book from either the Advanced line or the Ultimate line (the best selling Pathfinder books by far).
Top Sellers
Pathfinder Adventure Path #59: The Price of Infamy (Skull & Shackles 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
1. Pathfinder Adventure Path #59: The Price of Infamy (Skull & Shackles 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
Add Print Edition: $19.99
Add PDF: $13.992. Pathfinder Adventure Path #58: Island of Empty Eyes (Skull & Shackles 4 of 6) (PFRPG)
3. Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels (PFRPG)
4. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)
5. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Player Character Folio
6. Pathfinder Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition (PFRPG)
7. Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Magnimar, City of Monuments
8. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (OGL)
9. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)
10. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary (OG[/b]The APG barely cracked the top 10.
The ARG is a new book, and every new hardcover has always done well right after it was released. In a few weeks I expect for it to drop off.
PS:My information is from the Paizo site. The besting selling items are always on the front page.
PS2:There is no advanced line. The ARG and the APG both have the words "advanced" but they are not party of any sequel or line of books.
What they do share is that they a part of the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ongoing Subscription" which included all the of the hardbacks, and a few other things at times.
The Blood of Angels book is number 2, but that goes back to my "new book" statement.
I have made my points. Rather people agree or not is up to them. I personally would not play in a game with an in-flexible GM or one that demands the party do what he wants. A personal choice of mine as it is a personal choice of the in-flexible GM who he allows in his game. My parting wisdom I guess is just find friends that share your playstyle. There are many resources available to that end such as asking around at your local game store, visiting Obsidian Portal, or visiting meet-up.com for your area. If you do not have fun with one group do not let the experience ruin the game for you. Once you find a group you do have fun with the experience will be remembered for a life time.
Also I am normally the first person to admit I am wrong. However I did research on the Paizo website and they do in fact have a top-sellers list (though I was referencing my real life experience as I am a very social gamer and member of many different groups). The top sellers list references almost exclusivly character building supplements and the Bestiary's. As for the Advanced books being thier own line I suppose I just said that to save time instead of typing up both titles. However if you really want to be nit-picky then yes I was wrong in declaring them a line of books and I am sorry. The list as of today is as follows.
1.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)
(based on 17 reviews)
Add Hardcover:
$39.99
Add PDF:
$9.99
(In your downloads)2.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Player Character Folio
3.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (OGL)
4.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)
5.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary (OGL)
6.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: GameMastery Guide (OGL)
7.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Magic (OGL)
8.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Combat (OGL)
9.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 3 (OGL)
10.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 2 (OGL
Also I am normally the first person to admit I am wrong. However I did research on the Paizo website and they do in fact have a top-sellers list (though I was referencing my real life experience as I am a very social gamer and member of many different groups). The top sellers list references almost exclusivly character building supplements and the Bestiary's. As for the Advanced books being thier own line I suppose I just said that to save time instead of typing up both titles. However if you really want to be nit-picky then yes I was wrong in declaring them a line of books and I am sorry. The list as of today is as follows.
1.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)
(based on 17 reviews)
Add Hardcover:
$39.99
Add PDF:
$9.99
(In your downloads)2.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Player Character Folio
3.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (OGL)
4.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)
5.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary (OGL)
6.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: GameMastery Guide (OGL)
7.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Magic (OGL)
8.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Combat (OGL)
9.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 3 (OGL)
10.Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 2 (OGL
Are you sure that's not the bestselling list exclusively from the RPG line?
Also, I've always understood those to be 'the bestselling items this month' (or something), not the bestsellers in aggregate.
Yeah, it must be. Here's the current list from the broader Pathfinder category:
1. Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels (PFRPG)
(based on 1 review)
Add Print Edition: $10.99
Add PDF: $7.99
(In your downloads)
2. Pathfinder Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition (PFRPG)
3. Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Magnimar, City of Monuments
4. Pathfinder Adventure Path #21: "The Jackal's Price" (Legacy of Fire 3 of 6) (OGL)
5. Pathfinder Adventure Path #20: "House of the Beast" (Legacy of Fire 2 of 6) (OGL)
6. Pathfinder Adventure Path #24: "The Final Wish" (Legacy of Fire 6 of 6) (OGL)
7. Pathfinder Adventure Path #22: "The End of Eternity" (Legacy of Fire 4 of 6) (OGL)
8. Pathfinder Adventure Path #19: "Howl of the Carrion King" (Legacy of Fire 1 of 6) (OGL)
9. Pathfinder Adventure Path #23: "The Impossible Eye" (Legacy of Fire 5 of 6) (OGL)
10. Pathfinder #15—Second Darkness Chapter 3: "The Armageddon Echo" (OGL)
It must be a short term thing - the current anniversary sale is obviously skewing things.
The list of 'top selling paizo products' they emailed on Saturday is:
1. Pathfinder Adventure Path #59: The Price of Infamy (Skull & Shackles 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
2. Pathfinder Adventure Path #58: Island of Empty Eyes (Skull & Shackles 4 of 6) (PFRPG)
3. Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels (PFRPG)
4. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)
5. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Player Character Folio
6. Pathfinder Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition (PFRPG)
7. Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Magnimar, City of Monuments
8. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (OGL)
9. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)
10. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary (OGL)
|
all of this brings up another issue, picking a race for combat ability rather than for color/background etc.
On all these OP build threads I read, I'll always see things like "be sure you pick a gnome for your oracle of the heavens OP color spray build for the +2 DC illusion magic" so it appears the players are not picking this race because they really love the gnome background, inquisitiveness, relations with forest animals etc, they are picking it purely to make their already bad assed class abilities even more bad assed.
In my old AD&D game, the DM would impose a XP penalty on non-humans because being an elf etc. got you all kinds of bonuses (+ to hit with swords and bows, detections, vision, etc.) and there was no penalty vs a human character. Now PF is supposed to be more balanced with humans getting an extra feat, but many builds it still isnt really.
Part of the negaitve when picking a race with lots of abilities, is a roleplaying negative where you'll have trouble in many common RP encounters due to racial animosity.
elves vs dwarves, or much more pronounced half-orks, tiefling, or drow vs just about everyting. If you choose a "nearly a monster" race like this, is the DM wrong for putting that animosity in the game and making the character deal with it?
If the character travels to a land (say a drow PC going to a wood elf settlement) is it wrong for the DM to have the NPC wood elves treat the character as if he were any other drow attempting to enter their home?
or should the DM make these particular wood elves (who would regulary attempt to kill a drow on sight)be more open and accepting of their most hated enemy, maybe coming up with some farfetched "once a long time ago a drow saved the city so they can be more accepting of drow" kind of explanation?
Personally I feel if a player selects a race because of all the bonuses it gives (bite and stronger magic for vampork etc)they should have to deal with the negitive RP associations and DM's should only very minorly pull his...
You are apparently unaware that Humans are likely the strongest race in Pathfinder. An extra feat, an extra skill point every level, and a floating ability score bonus are HUGE. Going elf or dwarf or any other reason is, most often, not anywhere near as good as being human. Penalizing those races further because they're not humans is dumb.
And to the heart of the argument: A character that is unaccepted by nobility but fights and struggles to earn their respect is absolutely something a player may want to do. I'm not saying half-vampire-half-ork ninjas is okay in every game, but simply saying "the nobles are racist, no half-orcs" is just not trying hard enough.
The DM should be working with the players, and the players should be working with the DM, and if either of those aren't happening, then there is definitely something wrong.
2) Player has been told "all half orks in this area of the world are discriminated against greatly, Damphires are considered undead, a half-ork/half damphire even with "pass for human" (only a +10 to disguise, so for a 1st lev character isnt going to be high enough to avoid discovery in most situations)will be next to impossible to roleplay."
Wait, if the dude passes for human, why is he penalized unless they also penalize humans?
The gap between "benevolent director who steers the players and controls the game fairly in order to tell a story" and "power-hungry twerp who dukes out his/her control mania under pretense of storytelling" isn't as big as semantics would lead one to believe it is.
I agree with this. It does not have to be all or nothing. If I am a GM tell you that you will be asked to save the world, then you should come up with a character interested in doing so. If you don't feel like being heroic the talk to me about it before the game starts.
Even we agree on the main point of the story though, that does not mean that you have to keep working towards only that goal. It does mean however that you should still be aware what the main point of the story is.
Normally as a GM I have a beginning, and an ending with a few plot points in between. How the players move from point to point is up to them. This can be considered railroading, but the players still get to make all of the decisions. If I have every pointed plotted and I have predetermined how they get there then the railroad is more obvious. I don't think that level of railroading is needed.
If I as a GM have an idea to start the players off on a small mission and have them "happen" upon a bigger scheme that leads to a world saving campaign, but the players get distracted, I don't have a problem with it. I can always change things so that the bigger scheme comes into the picture later, if it comes up at all.
wait, who is suffering the onetruwayism here, the player who feels this character is the ONLY character he'd enjoy playing or the DM who is offering him many choices but telling him this particular choice will lead to having his vampork being greatly discriminated against?
Sure I am probalby leaping to the assumption that in a game where 50% of the encounters or more are roleplaying encounters, sitting in the Hellknight jail or hiding in the inn doing nothing would not be fun for the player, but I have a feeling when he came up with this build that was not what he imagined doing.
Again I do think the build is an awesome concept, I just dont think it fits with this setting/game-style, and although this has been clearly explained to the player, I'm suspecting he really hasnt gotten the message yet.
Maybe it will require him having these things happen before he understands when the DM and other players warn him about what "greatly discriminated against" leads to in-game, he will believe them rather than thinking "whats the worst that could happen?" or "im sure my awesome "pass for human" disguise skill of 13 will prevent any problems."
I think the issue was when you said, "he's not seeing that a different character choice would allow him more enjoyment of the setting."
ImperatorK is saying you have no idea of what that player would enjoy more.
wait, who is suffering the onetruwayism here, the player who feels this character is the ONLY character he'd enjoy playing or the DM who is offering him many choices but telling him this particular choice will lead to having his vampork being greatly discriminated against?
Sure I am probalby leaping to the assumption that in a game where 50% of the encounters or more are roleplaying encounters, sitting in the Hellknight jail or hiding in the inn doing nothing would not be fun for the player, but I have a feeling when he came up with this build that was not what he imagined doing.
Again I do think the build is an awesome concept, I just dont think it fits with this setting/game-style, and although this has been clearly explained to the player, I'm suspecting he really hasnt gotten the message yet.
Either he will like the roleplaying opportunities or he won't. But you'll never know if the GM just says no.
And of course I think the player is suffering. Is it really THAT important that the nobles are racist? Can't half-orcs be an exception? Or at least this specific half-orc? And even if the nobles won't like him, then that's his problem, not yours or the GMs. Maybe being hated is exactly what he wants, even think of that?
I had a teifling in a game, and that race is treated as if it is a 2nd class citizen. He told me this before we started. I went out to buy something, and the shop owner looked past me as if I was not even there, and asked everyone else what they wanted just because he did want a teifling as a customer. IC, my character was not happy about it, but OOC I thought it was cool that he played it up like that.
PS:The teifling was not the best choice for the class I was playing so it was not a powergaming issue. I just wanted to try the race out.
all of this brings up another issue, picking a race for combat ability rather than for color/background etc.
On all these OP build threads I read, I'll always see things like "be sure you pick a gnome for your oracle of the heavens OP color spray build for the +2 DC illusion magic" so it appears the players are not picking this race because they really love the gnome background, inquisitiveness, relations with forest animals etc, they are picking it purely to make their already bad assed class abilities even more bad assed.
In my old AD&D game, the DM would impose a XP penalty on non-humans because being an elf etc. got you all kinds of bonuses (+ to hit with swords and bows, detections, vision, etc.) and there was no penalty vs a human character. Now PF is supposed to be more balanced with humans getting an extra feat, but many builds it still isnt really.
Part of the negaitve when picking a race with lots of abilities, is a roleplaying negative where you'll have trouble in many common RP encounters due to racial animosity.
elves vs dwarves, or much more pronounced half-orks, tiefling, or drow vs just about everyting. If you choose a "nearly a monster" race like this, is the DM wrong for putting that animosity in the game and making the character deal with it?
If the character travels to a land (say a drow PC going to a wood elf settlement) is it wrong for the DM to have the NPC wood elves treat the character as if he were any other drow attempting to enter their home?
or should the DM make these particular wood elves (who would regulary attempt to kill a drow on sight)be more open and accepting of their most hated enemy, maybe coming up with some farfetched "once a long time ago a drow saved the city so they can be more accepting of drow" kind of explanation?
Personally I feel if a player selects a race because of all the bonuses it gives (bite and stronger magic for vampork etc)they should have to deal with the negitive RP associations and DM's should only very minorly pull his...
When people come here for advice they often want the best advice. Giving them that advice is not an issue. Knowing the best advice does not mean you will always take the more powerful option, if it does not fit the concept. Me taking a teifling, while knowing a human or dwarf would have been better is an example of that.
As for the drow question, I think that is legit. Drow are known for causing trouble so having people not like them is not bad of a GM to do. He should do it because it is based on fluff though, not just because the drow is the best race for class X. If you do that and the player dies, but then chooses the same race as another PC, but also has a class that it synergizes with well do you punish both players? If not then how do you justify giving one player a hard time, but not the other?
Impersonater KThat's not right.
LOL, sorry about that. I changed it.
|
That's what I always say and everyone glares at me. You don't have to use the given fluff at all, as long as you can come up with an interesting concept that explains the class's skill set.Ninja and samurai are just names. You could very well write "assassin" and "lord" on the sheet instead. I find funny the idea of the ninja refused in a stone age campaign when it can be some kind of awesome "child of the night" from a weird order venerating shadows.
As to the whole "ninja/samurai/half vampire/blahblahblah": figure out before hand what kind of game the GM likes to run, and if you feel too limited because he wants to run, to use an above example, a Wild West adventure that is more Josie Wales than Kung-Fu, either adapt or find another game.
Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.
Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.
There's still no reason you couldn't use the alternate skill sets built with those concepts in mind for another concept. There is no problem.
Will it lessen the uncooperative one's fun to make a character according to the story?It lessens my fun when I have a concept that I'm very keen on playing, but I can't, because the DM is too lazy or stupid to work with me to incorporate it.
Is ONE player's fun more important than everyone else's fun?Where did I say that?
Now please, answer my questions.
The GM wants to tell a certain story.Then what why is he playing a game with people instead of writing a novel or something?
Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?Again, how does my fun deny fun for others? They're not really good friends if me having fun somehow lessens their fun...Actually...
This happened in a recent campaign.
I rolled up a high Int rogue that could hold his own in combat and focused on a massive skill set.
Another player rolled up the optimized switch-hitter ranger, and more or less followed that build 100%.
Another player rolled up a min-maxed paladin of Sarenrae.Based off of the playstyles of those builds, I would go four or five combats without finding an opportunity to sneak attack. Not only would these players steal flanking opportunities from me, but they'd back enemies into corners where other characters couldn't reach, or engage enemies in such a way that attempting to get into a flanking position would draw more than one AoO.
At level 4, when I did manage to set up a flank, I was dealing 4d6+1 damage with a +8 on my attack roll, or a 2d6+1 at +6 without a flank.
Same level, the paladin was attacking at +9, and dealing 2d6+14. Ranger was just slightly worse, attacking at +7 and dealing 1d8+13.
So under optimal conditions, my non optimized rogue had a lower hit chance and the paladin's minimum damage was still greater than my average damage.
My character ended up dying in combat trying to get into a position to flank after the paladin...
Ouch... This sucks.
I say a little prayer that all the non-dick gamers find each other and sit down at the same table.
Another problem is, when you use an adventure path from paizo most of the villains and monsters and npc are not built with powergaming in mind(except an infamous lamia matriach). If you, as a DM, do not change every encounter, most of the encouters will be too easy. SO, the main reason to buy a AP module, for me with only very little time to create adventures of my own design, is a little obsulete for me.
|
|
Another problem is, when you use an adventure path from paizo most of the villains and monsters and npc are not built with powergaming in mind(except an infamous lamia matriach). If you, as a DM, do not change every encounter, most of the encouters will be too easy. SO, the main reason to buy a AP module, for me with only very little time to create adventures of my own design, is a little obsulete for me.
They're written with a 15 point buy and very unoptimized characters in mind (the "iconics" look like they were built by someone specifically trying not to build a decent character). Most of the APs I've played in are pretty much a cakewalk for average, not terribly optimized characters with a 20 pt buy.
|
|
Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.There's still no reason you couldn't use the alternate skill sets built with those concepts in mind for another concept. There is no problem.
And there's no reason, other than Japanophile fanbois, they couldn't just be rogue and fighter archetypes.
It's not hard to increase the HD of a creature and have it's CR go up appropriately.
You don't need to literally remake an AP encounter, just inject some more HD.
|
|
And there's no reason, other than Japanophile fanbois, they couldn't just be rogue and fighter archetypes.Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.There's still no reason you couldn't use the alternate skill sets built with those concepts in mind for another concept. There is no problem.
Just like there's no reason, other than Westernophile fanbois, that Paladin couldn't just be a Fighter archetype. :P
|
|
Just like there's no reason, other than Westernophile fanbois, that Paladin couldn't just be a Fighter archetype. :PAnd there's no reason, other than Japanophile fanbois, they couldn't just be rogue and fighter archetypes.Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.There's still no reason you couldn't use the alternate skill sets built with those concepts in mind for another concept. There is no problem.
We eliminated it as a core class and made it a prestige class in our home game pretty much for that reason, actually. And you can very easily build a "ninja" using the expanded options for our rogue.
And, to be fair to D&D, the paladin and ranger were originally sub classes of fighter.
|
|
And there's no reason, other than Japanophile fanbois, they couldn't just be rogue and fighter archetypes.Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.There's still no reason you couldn't use the alternate skill sets built with those concepts in mind for another concept. There is no problem.
Sure, except they totally are archetypes of respectively the Rogue and Cavalier.
"Alternate classes" are just a fancy way to talk about glorified archetypes with their own table, picture and fluff put on ink. It comes from the developers themselves, and from the book itself. And no, I won't quote the relevant sentences for you, it's easy to find with a research and after a dozen times I'm tired of it.And again, these are just NAMES. The game assumes that you do whatever you want with the rulesets, warping the fluff and even the crunch to adapt it to your setting, as long as everyone is having fun.
If I want to say my character is a Divine Archmagi or a Elder Lumpazala Spirits Speaker, he could very well be a mystic theurge or a witch.
The DM basically said "well if there was, then he would also be just as well known, which is something I'd prefer didnt happen for any character till later on in the game, but then theres also this problem of being half damphire which makes this twice as hard considering the amount of suspicion your alredy going to be dealing with."
What if the half-orc has the trait to look perfectly human ? (Look at this guy on the d20pfsrd's "Human" page. Guess what race he actually is ?)
What if actually has a lot of Charisma, is pretty handsome and charms ladies despite his origins ? Do the police ask for birth certificates to know for sure there are only three half-orcs in the city ? Do they cast a Cure spell on anyone to check for undeads ?It's not even a question of adaptation ; right now the DM is just not putting any effort nor imagination on making the concept possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who plays a fighting character and does not make a warrior is a munchkin! And rogues are just OP experts! Not to mention how any caster that is not an adept is just trolling the game with their powergaming mischief.
More baseless opinions at 10.
|
|
Anyone who plays a fighting character and does not make a warrior is a munchkin! And rogues are just OP experts! Not to mention how any caster that is not an adept is just trolling the game with their powergaming mischief.
More baseless opinions at 10.
Less classes. More options. Let's see if players can actually be creative, like we had to before they made a base class for every. single. concept. (3.5).
It may take longer, but eventually Pathfinder is going to be the same convoluted mess 3.5 was, unless someone decides that having a bunch of base classes is silly.
I agree and have said as much about this path Pathfinder is taking houstonderek. But how on earth do we convince the developers this is the better route?
I think any game can eventually become bloated. PF will just take longer than 3.5 since they don't put out as much new stuff every month. As for the "better route", I think you have to tell them how to keep the profits coming in while putting out less classes. Other than the PrC book I don't think a we need many more new classes though. Archetypes can handle the rest along with other options, such as feats.
Us GM's also have to be more open-minded.
|
|
I agree and have said as much about this path Pathfinder is taking houstonderek. But how on earth do we convince the developers this is the better route?
Well, so far Paizo has been putting out decent, seemingly well play tested product, which is light years ahead of the "we need seventeen hardcovers a week, damn the editing and playtesting to see if it all plays nice together" 3x crap WotC put out. I also think that, by the time they even come close to approaching 3x's level of nonsense, they'll be ready for v2.0, and they can finally say "screw backward compatibility" and do something more innovative and modular, as far as class options go, while still keeping the 3x feel people seem to like.
At least I hope they do. Right now, Pathfinder really is just 3x houserules used to support APs and a setting. Some day, I'd like to see it distinct enough to not feel like that.
And there's no reason, other than Japanophile fanbois, they couldn't just be rogue and fighter archetypes.Well, you see, the problem is, they already have classes that cover that. Rogue and fighter. The only reason "ninja" and "samurai" exist is because of the fluff.There's still no reason you couldn't use the alternate skill sets built with those concepts in mind for another concept. There is no problem.
The alternate classes have a unique blend of abilities, so yes there is a reason they just couldn't be a rogue or a cavalier (as that's what Samurai is an alt of, not fighter), though to be fair you could get close as a rogue but that also begs the question of why don't you just be a reflavored ninja instead of being a rogue built around emulating ninja.
Are you using gaming mechanics to make your point? Seriously? Wow.
Yes, they are mechanically quite different. The smug sense of superiority you seem to have been trying to give off with that last post aside, what's wrong with wanting a character to function differently in a mechanical sense? Going to go on about "powergaming" and "rollplaying", even though most of this topic seems to have been about how making a character that plays the way you like and having a good concept and personality for said character are not mutually exclusive?
|
|
I don't see a difference. I see a fighter on a horse. I see an assassin wearing black pajamas and funny socks.
I see a whole lot of core class garbage that could have been handled with archetypes or options for existing core classes, and I remember exactly where all that "we need a core class for EVERY POSSIBLE CONCEPT EVAH" lead 3x.
I see a whole lot of people claiming they want to imagine something a certain way when all they really want is a game designer to do the imagining for them.
I have NO PROBLEM with any concept a player wants to run by me. I have a HUGE problem with rules bloat because apparently imagination is something gaming left behind in the Eighties.
I agree with you about more indepth archetypes instead of more core classes, but I disagree with your assertion that having more mechanical options is taking away from players "imagining". Instead it gives players a pre-defined rule set to go with the concept they have in mind without the DM having to homebrew if they didn't want to. It gives the players and the DM the option of having a scale to go off of without having to make it themselves, as opposed to the desperate DM fall back of "I don't know what would cover that, so just roll a d20 and I'll arbitrarily decide if it was enough".
|
I don't see a difference. I see a fighter on a horse. I see an assassin wearing black pajamas and funny socks.
I see a whole lot of core class garbage that could have been handled with archetypes or options for existing core classes, and I remember exactly where all that "we need a core class for EVERY POSSIBLE CONCEPT EVAH" lead 3x.
I see a whole lot of people claiming they want to imagine something a certain way when all they really want is a game designer to do the imagining for them.
I have NO PROBLEM with any concept a player wants to run by me. I have a HUGE problem with rules bloat because apparently imagination is something gaming left behind in the Eighties.
Ninja and Samarai are not core classes they are alternate class options like the archtypes are so your point is moot.
If you want to argue semantics and your hate for fun then take it to another thread that you start on this topic. This is off topic and not fun enough for me to want to perpetuate.