I don't believe there's any such thing as too many options.
If you don't want to use a book or something that's in a book (including the core books), then you simply don't allow it.
In regards to you having trouble keeping up with all the player options, I would suggest you talk to your players and ask them how they plan to use their character (especially if they enjoy "minmaxing"). That way you can see how they think all of their choices interact, so you won't be surprised (and can look up to see if they're right if necessary). Along those same lines, I would try to avoid kneejerk reactions; it may sound awesome on paper but it may be less so in game. "I'm fine with this for now, but if it's too powerful in practice we may need to change it," is always better than "you can do what?! No, everything you just said is banned now."
...that was a little off topic but your dilemma seemed to imply this as an issue.
Is it wll becoming to much when there seems to be a rule for everything.
And the DM is required to make fewer and fewer rulings on the game it self .
I see this as a good thing. The less I have to worry about making on the spot rulings that can potentially cause strife at the table and distract from the story, the better IMHO.
I don't if this suggestion would help you, but...
When the players are designing their 1st level character, I also ask them to the give me a sheet that shows what they'd like that character to look like all pimped out at 20th level. Said 20th level proposal is not set in stone for either of us: it's just a really great outline of expectation.
It gives me an idea of what rules and splat books I'll need to tag for campaign reference, tailor the stories and encounters to best flow with the player's intentions, what loot would be worthless or valuable, etc. More importantly, it gives me an opportunity to discuss with the player my concerns for being too min/max'ed or being too underpowered before the campaign starts. We can talk about problems I'd have with a PC going that route... they can help alleviate my concerns and make assurances to avoid future problems.
However on that same note, the players have my full assurance that I won't abuse knowledge of the PC's desired build (crafting enemies to specifically defeat them/be invincibile) or they can't change their mind/make alterations during the campaign. Though huge changes might have me ask if they could update the original sheet.
Hi all with all the new books that have been releasd do you think piazo is running the risk of bogging down pathfinder with to many rules and options ?
I know as a DM i have trouble keeping up with all the different feats,skills,classes and races
Is it wll becoming to much when there seems to be a rule for everything.
And the DM is required to make fewer and fewer rulings on the game it self .
and just be able to quote the rules parrot like as the need arises
Well in terms of the RPG line, they have pretty much said they are done releasing feat, class, race books. That could change if they come up with a great idea, but from the hardback rulebooks what we have is what we will have for the forseable future. Going forward it will be subsystems and optional stuff like mythic, with a clear line drawn, use it or dont use it. We might eventually see a psionics book or something, but even so, the expansion of the 'core' ruleset is pretty much done.
Not to mention, as dm, you have control over what to allow in your game. If you dont like hte downtime system in ultimate campaign, dont use it. Its really that easy. For those that want a codified downtime system its there to use, but you are not required to use it at your table.
At my table I allow a large variety of things in, but its all on gm approval, meaning my players have to run it by me first. So in terms of player options I only need to know what the players are using, and what my npcs/monsters can do. A significant subset of what is out there.
Though On a personal level, I like having rules for things, and I prefer to use published stuff if I need something then make a 'ruling'. It just feels more impartial. I am human, and I have been playing this game or something like it for a LONG time. No matter how much I think my understanding of the game has increased over time, I have biases, I have preconceptions. My rulings are generally skewed along those lines. In the age of tablets, online searchable reference documents, and massive amounts of information literally at my fingertips, its kind of nice to have all that stuff laid out in front of me in text, so I dont have to make it up as I go along, and maybe screw it up in the process.
For example, I have arbitrated dozens of 'chases' over the years I've dmed. There have been lots of times when someone has wanted to flee, and someone wanted to chase, and the combat rules simply dont cut it. Its practically impossible to run away from someone if you dont have resources in place to stop them. Usually they are either anticlimactic, frustrating, or more or less pointless.
A couple months ago, we had a situation devolve into a chase in a friend's game. Rather then come up with something on the fly, he took 5 minutes and looked up the chase rules from the game mastery guide. It actually ended up being really fun and its something that has become a staple in our group now (he even got the chase card deck which is lots of fun). There was tension, excitement and cheering. Way better then a handful of meaningless initiative rolls or worse, tactical movement on a board to arbitrate a chase.
Its just an example I know, but its a clear case where extra rules helped my group at least have more fun.