My last post received some sound replies, especially from DeathQuaker – thank you very much, so I’ve decided to revise my approach to the subject and post what I would like to see in Pathfinder and how it could possibly be achieved.
Broken up into several posts, for your convenience.
First point; Prestige Classes:
I previously stated that I really miss the feeling of achievement when I finally got into my prestige class. This didn’t come from expected power gain, but from a genuine sense of – for lack of a better word: Yay! I had achieved something for my character that I had set out to from the beginning of the campaign.
First problem: We sorely lack more generic prestige classes in Pathfinder.
By generic I don’t mean things like the ones the old 3.5 books where filled with to the point of overflowing. I mean instead classes like a Guild Thief, Dragon Slayer or Demon Hunter, classes that are solid in concept, but broad in organizational possibility.
I quite like the Paths of Prestige, but it is very specific in scope, limiting itself only to prestige classes for organizations in Golarion. The problem with it is that while I can make quite the awesome Aspis Agent, I cannot make a Guild Thief without seriously re-fluffing – and sometimes re-crunching – large parts of the class.
A more generic approach will allow us to make our own societies that fit our own worlds better.
So a bunch of generic classes that would scream out for being included in an organization and therefore be real prestigious classes, in the spirit of the original intent.
Second problem: Prerequisites.
Prestige classes are known – and hated – for their, often, strange or excessive requirements, which often makes little sense to most of us. A class like the Master Spy has a good Will save and gain a few abilities that help out with preventing mind control, and yet, it has Iron Will as a requirement.
What I propose is that prestige classes eliminate feat requirements, keeping the base attack and skill prerequisites and adding story prerequisites.
Example: Dragon Slayer would have a base attack requirement, knowledge (arcana) and probably survival and knowledge (dungeoneering) as well. Then it would have the story requirement of having to slay a dragon of a certain hit dice, to turn theory into praxis.
Now anyone can fulfill a base attack requirement and a reasonable skill requirement, but you’d have to go find an actual dragon to fulfill the story prerequisite and gain entrance into the prestige class. So we’re back at having a feeling of fulfillment.
Remember: I know that I can easily covert 3.5 stuff; I’m doing it quite often already. The problem with this is that if we keep recycling the old stuff, nothing new will come along. So if we keep milling the same old grain, we will end up having nothing left.
Second point; Archetypes:
I stated that Archetypes doesn’t really replace prestige classes because they only bring minor changes to the table and so become rather bland in their execution.
The problem: Archetypes has only a very minor impact on the flavor of the class.
We can probably all agree that archetypes find their roots in the old D&D edition Kits and the newer 3.5 variant classes. I cannot talk about the old kits, because I was not playing with those when I first started out. But I can say that I found the variant classes of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana to be vastly more interesting.
The variant classes were really varied; some lost base attack bonus and took a step down in their hit die, some changed basic class features radically to become something quite different from before. Common to them were that they all changed radically, not just changing minor features.
I would suggest that archetypes took on some drastic measures to make them stand out from the basic class. Things like the two-weapon warrior and the archeologist bard is a step in the right direction, but for each interesting archetype coming out, we have a ton that is basically the same with some minor changes that really changes nothing about the class.
Example: make a rogue that doesn’t have sneak attack, but instead has the ability to create a magical weapon ala the soulknife. Or make a druid without wildshape but with added spellcasting options.
Change the game through the archetypes instead of just making a load of more or less successful/interesting class features seemingly at random.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third Point; the teasing about upcoming products:
When the developers post something about the new Advanced Class Guide beginning play-tests later this fall, I immediately look very much forward to the play-test because it is something new and interesting to play around with.
Then when it takes 2-3 months to get the actual play-test on the website, I lose most of my interest for it, even forgetting about it sometimes. If instead, they got the play-test on the forum within 2-4 week; I would keep up the enthusiasm and still be very interested when the play-test became available.
I assume that when the developers are ready to announce the play-test it is because they have the actual product ready for testing, not because they just thought it would be funny to announce it something they’ve been kicking around at the office for a couple of days.
So what I propose is to get the play-test on the website as soon as possible after the announcement. I’ve worked in the graphics/web design business, so I know how easy it is to adjust a forum and put in a new category, especially when you already have a template, as they do from the previous play-tests.
If the delay has something to do with waiting for the sketch art from Wayne Reynolds (who is an awesome artist, no complaints there), or not having the material completely ready, then they should also delay the announcement until such a time when they can have the play-test up and running within a few weeks.
When I talked about Paizo stepping up their game and be the big company that they have become, this was mostly what I was talking about. It’s unbecoming for a leading company in any industry to announce something coming in the near future and then going silent about the product for an extended period of time. And we should all be able to agree that in business, 2-3 month of silence is an extended period of time.
Closing statements:
I like Pathfinder a lot; the core book brought us a lot of changes that the game really needed, though we didn’t know it before we saw them. The APG brought us a wealth of new classes and new options for our characters, both PC’s and NPC’s alike. The Ultimate Magic gave us our first true hybrid class since the Bard and Ultimate Combat brought us guns (like them or not is another discussion).
Golarion is a world rich in different flavors, but my players and I are not very interested in it as a whole. It has too many flavors, placed too closely to each other, it’s like going through a buffet, putting everything on your plate at once and then trying to separate the different flavors afterwards. It’s a hodgepodge of everything and not a very much of one thing … a bit like a Bard actually.
Don’t get me wrong, I like many of the elements, especially Numeria and Galt are quite interesting to me, but mashed up with a great many average fantasy elements it all becomes too much to be interesting to my group.
In my last thread, someone asked how many classes one could possibly need to play the game. I would have to say a lot. As I GM far more than I play I am always on the lookout for something new and surprising to spring on my players, since I find the humanoid monster to be far more interesting than the grotesque. I also like to vary my villains a bit more than “just another wizard out to dominate the world”, so new classes are always a welcome way to vary the game for my group.
I like the d20 way to game, it is varied enough to support many concepts, but sadly far from all. It’s rigid enough in its rules set that my group can quickly agree on a rules interpretation in the middle of a session. And it’s simple enough that new players can play it without too much fuss, though I must admit that character creation can be a nightmare to new blood.
All in all I like the Pathfinder system, but that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore the possibility for progress, even good things can always be improved upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing about opinions is everyone's is different and few or none are worth more the3n any other.
See I completely disagree with you. I would rather see Prestige Classes done away with completely. It is a fiddly and clunky system that was nothing more then a poor bandaid for how bland and poorly made many classes had been in 3.5.
Archetypes on the other hand accomplish the need of fleshing out chars so they are very distinctly different even with the same class. And honestly if you think they only vary slightly you really haven't taken a good look at many of them.
A bard that is far more like a rogue? (but better.) Yep. A intelligent fighter that uses his brain a to help overcome the enemy? Yep. A rangerbarian? Yep.
Many of these trade out MAJOR class features for another classes MAJOR feature. Hexcrafter being another one. These things are in no way minor.
The funny thing about opinions is everyone's is different and few or none are worth more the3n any other.
See I completely disagree with you. I would rather see Prestige Classes done away with completely. It is a fiddly and clunky system that was nothing more then a poor bandaid for how bland and poorly made many classes had been in 3.5.
Archetypes on the other hand accomplish the need of fleshing out chars so they are very distinctly different even with the same class. And honestly if you think they only vary slightly you really haven't taken a good look at many of them.
A bard that is far more like a rogue? (but better.) Yep. A intelligent fighter that uses his brain a to help overcome the enemy? Yep. A rangerbarian? Yep.
Many of these trade out MAJOR class features for another classes MAJOR feature. Hexcrafter being another one. These things are in no way minor.
Many actually changes things, yes. I agree. But most doesn't really do anything the class didn't already do on its own, only very slightly better.
Examples: Breaker (barbarian), Arctic Druid, Two-weapon Warrior (fighter), Hospitaler (paladin), and so on and so forth. None of these does anything the class couldn't already do quite well, especially the poor two-weapon warrior.
And these are just from the ARG, where archetypes were still interesting and new. The more books we get, the more thin and uninsteresting the archetypes become; such as the gunwielding paladin archetype from UC, or even worse the gunwielding wizard from the same book.
My complaint is that they're the new prestige classes, with all of the old baggage. As the game expands, archetypes will become stanger and stranger, with less and less shape or idea.
It's been there since the beginning and it's only getting worse, since each new book carry the promise of new archetypes, just as each new 3.5 book carried the promise of new prestige classes.
Most of them aren't even archetypical, they're just alternative class features. A gunwielding paladin? A wizard with a firearm? The concepts are interesting, but could be done just as well with picking the right feats.
The funny thing about opinions is everyone's is different and few or none are worth more the3n any other.
See I completely disagree with you. I would rather see Prestige Classes done away with completely. It is a fiddly and clunky system that was nothing more then a poor bandaid for how bland and poorly made many classes had been in 3.5.
Archetypes on the other hand accomplish the need of fleshing out chars so they are very distinctly different even with the same class. And honestly if you think they only vary slightly you really haven't taken a good look at many of them.
A bard that is far more like a rogue? (but better.) Yep. A intelligent fighter that uses his brain a to help overcome the enemy? Yep. A rangerbarian? Yep.
Many of these trade out MAJOR class features for another classes MAJOR feature. Hexcrafter being another one. These things are in no way minor.
Not quite completely, but in general I agree with you. Where we need PrC’s in PF are those PrCs (like Pathfinder) that can be entered to by many classes, and are setting specific.
So, I see little use for the Assassin or Shadowdancer except for as rogue archetypes. Master Chymist could also be a archtype.
The Mystic Theurge combines two classes, and thus it can’t really be a archetype of just one. So, yes. But the Pathfinder is perfect.
But yes, I don't care for too many PrCs and multi-PrC dipping into a super broken munchkin combo was one of the things that ruined 3.5 there at the end. I hope they never bring that back.
My complaint is that they're the new prestige classes, with all of the old baggage. As the game expands, archetypes will become stanger and stranger, with less and less shape or idea.
It's been there since the beginning and it's only getting worse, since each new book carry the promise of new archetypes, just as each new 3.5 book carried the promise of new prestige classes.
NO! Not even close. See, the thing about archetypes is that it’s rather difficult to ‘dip’ and it’s pretty much impossible to multi-dip. Strange is Ok, as long as we don’t get combos like “Base 3, Base 1, Base 1, PrC2, PrC1, PrC 5, PrC 3, PrC 3, ….”
So, unlike 3.5 where more PrC meant a power creep, in PF the same is not true. It’s like adding more spell vs more feats. Yes, more feats did add a little to Fighters, but since you got only so many feats extra splat books only helped if there was a great feat there. Unlike spells, where every splatbook made the caster geometrically stronger.
PF could add a thousand archetypes and still, almost no one could take more than two. But I have seen and played with 15th level 3.5 PC’s with 5 PrC’s already, and eagerly scanning new books for the next.
Now yes, if once you entered a PrC you could never take another, sure. That was the original idea.
My complaint is that they're the new prestige classes, with all of the old baggage. As the game expands, archetypes will become stanger and stranger, with less and less shape or idea.
It's been there since the beginning and it's only getting worse, since each new book carry the promise of new archetypes, just as each new 3.5 book carried the promise of new prestige classes.
NO! Not even close. See, the thing about archetypes is that it’s rather difficult to ‘dip’ and it’s pretty much impossible to multi-dip. Strange is Ok, as long as we don’t get combos like “Base 3, Base 1, Base 1, PrC2, PrC1, PrC 5, PrC 3, PrC 3, ….”
So, unlike 3.5 where more PrC meant a power creep, in PF the same is not true. It’s like adding more spell vs more feats. Yes, more feats did add a little to Fighters, but since you got only so many feats extra splat books only helped if there was a great feat there. Unlike spells, where every splatbook made the caster geometrically stronger.
PF could add a thousand archetypes and still, almost no one could take more than two. But I have seen and played with 15th level 3.5 PC’s with 5 PrC’s already, and eagerly scanning new books for the next.
Now yes, if once you entered a PrC you could never take another, sure. That was the original idea.
So Archetypes getting more and more wacky as the developers run out of ideas - or even believable concepts - is just fine, because nobody will use them anyway?
You may think that the powergaming problem is solved, but it's still very much there, and it's even easier than before, since none of the combinations has requirements anymore. But powergaming is entirely besides the point of what I would like to see more off.
What I'm proposing is prestige classes for those of us who doesn't play in Golarion. It doesn't have to be a ton of more and more powerful stuff, front loaded for maximal powergaming. What I proposed was simple, flavorful prestige classes that can easily be used to create organisations outside of Golarion.
That you hate prestige classes because you've seen some powergamers hunt the perfect powerbuild doesn't make them inherently flawed. If the issue with throwing all the powerful abilities in at the low levels is solved - not a hard thing to do really, then prestige classes would again be an interesting, flavorful option for those of us that like to have something to achieve outside of the next level or the next spell.
On the other hand, archetypes doesn't give you anything to strive for,, you've already got it from level 1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First problem: We sorely lack more generic prestige classes in Pathfinder.
By generic I don’t mean things like the ones the old 3.5 books where filled with to the point of overflowing. I mean instead classes like a Guild Thief, Dragon Slayer or Demon Hunter, classes that are solid in concept, but broad in organizational possibility.
What would you be able to do as a "Guild Thief" that couldn't be accomplished as a Rogue?
The same can be said about your other examples, "Dragon Slayer" and "Demon Hunter", both of those concepts can be created perfectly by classes like fighter and ranger, or any of the divine classes regarding the demon hunter.
First problem: We sorely lack more generic prestige classes in Pathfinder.
By generic I don’t mean things like the ones the old 3.5 books where filled with to the point of overflowing. I mean instead classes like a Guild Thief, Dragon Slayer or Demon Hunter, classes that are solid in concept, but broad in organizational possibility.
What would you be able to do as a "Guild Thief" that couldn't be accomplished as a Rogue?
The same can be said about your other examples, "Dragon Slayer" and "Demon Hunter", both of those concepts can be created perfectly by classes like fighter and ranger, or any of the divine classes regarding the demon hunter.
For the Guild Thief I'd do abilities that would make fencing stolen goods easier, I'd give him benefits in his local enviroment akin to the Ranger, but focus on stealing, staking out a mark and maybe assassination.
For the Dragon Slayer I'd give them some benefits against dragons, obviously, but with increased benefits to attack, damage and AC against true dragons and lesser benefits against all other draconic creatures.
The Demon Hunter shouldn't depend on magic abilities at all, it could add caster levels, to make it more acceptable to casters - both arcane and divine, but it's abilities should be open to every class, like the dragon slayer.
The point of having prestige classes like these would be to build concepts. You are right that it's easy to make a good fighter or ranger dragon slayer, but making a rogue or cleric is a different matter. Prestige classes like these would make it easier for the less obvious classes to be something that fits the campaign better, a fighter could become a guild thief - classic bruiser, while a magus could go demon hunting, or a rogue could become a dragon slayer.
And seen from the GM perspective - which is most often my position - it would be easy to design a group of slick thieves operating within a city where their power grants them benefits no normal rogue would have. Or a group of mighty dragon slayers looking for fresh young recruits.
So it could be a benefit to everyone, both players and GMs alike.
First problem: We sorely lack more generic prestige classes in Pathfinder.
By generic I don’t mean things like the ones the old 3.5 books where filled with to the point of overflowing. I mean instead classes like a Guild Thief, Dragon Slayer or Demon Hunter, classes that are solid in concept, but broad in organizational possibility.
What would you be able to do as a "Guild Thief" that couldn't be accomplished as a Rogue?
The same can be said about your other examples, "Dragon Slayer" and "Demon Hunter", both of those concepts can be created perfectly by classes like fighter and ranger, or any of the divine classes regarding the demon hunter.
What if I don't *want* to play a rogue? What if I *want* to play a fighter who does sneaky stuff, takes ranks in disguise and then becomes a guild thief (and as a function of that expects to pick up some class features that are apropos for that role?)
To some extent I feel like Prestige classes should be a setting specific thing but when I really think about it I think they're better off being generic achievement level things that multiple classes strive for.
To clarify, while I enjoy Master Chymist, I hate the fact that it's a Prestige class because it really could be better suited as an archetype considering that its pretty exclusive to Alchemist.
I like Assassin because anybody could do it, it just takes you narrowing what your job is.
The key thought about it is the term 'Job', Prestige classes should mean that you're becoming specific with your mode of operating with the prerequisites representing what you had to do to get to that specific kind of job.
I cannot say no to more generic non-setting specific prestige classes in the core rules.
I am more in favor of prestige classes than archetypes in setting specific situations or companions for specific adventure paths or setting elements.
My main problems with prestige classes are:
1) They are often more of a complication than I care for. Due to prerequisites it takes a lot of pre-planning which means a lot of work before actually making my lvl 1 character.
2) When making a concept its often unnecessary to finish my character concept considering what archetypes can do. Sure some classes have really lame archetypes due to the game not being originally designed for them, (Sorcerers, Cavaliers, Rogues and Fighters come to mind) but most of them drastically change how I look at and deal with my character and allow me to replicate a lot of ideas that I have to the point where I almost never have a use for a prestige class.
3) The more multiclass requirement prestige classes feel like a pain before I take a few levels in it. I love the Magus because I don't have to be a half-baked wizard or a nerfed fighter before I can do something cool, I was able to be my character concept right at lvl 1
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume that when the developers are ready to announce the play-test it is because they have the actual product ready for testing, not because they just thought it would be funny to announce it something they’ve been kicking around at the office for a couple of days.
Your assumption is incorrect.
1. We usually announce our GenCon product for next year at this year's GenCon, because we have 20,000+ people waiting for the announcement.
2. That's the product we do a public playtest for.
3. We're usually wrapping up this year's fall book right before GenCon (case in point, the text files for Bestiary 4 were last modified July 28, just a couple weeks before GenCon.
4. And then we're spending the week before GenCon finishing all of our prep for GenCon, in addition to any other products we expect to ship that week.
5. So formal in-house design for the announced-at-GenCon book often doesn't start until after we're back from GenCon. (Note, we've usually been discussing it for weeks or months beforehand, and in fact had NDA-required panels with fans at PaizoCon and DragonCon where we had a class design discussion about these classes). But the actuall, "the design team has time allocated to design this material for the playtest" doesn't occur until after GenCon.
6. And that's on top of all the other things we have to catch up on for being out of the office for a week.
The above structure not likely to change, as announcing the next's year's product to customers, retailers, and distributors is much more important than you losing interest because it takes a couple months for the playtest to start.
I assume that when the developers are ready to announce the play-test it is because they have the actual product ready for testing, not because they just thought it would be funny to announce it something they’ve been kicking around at the office for a couple of days.Your assumption is incorrect.
1. We usually announce our GenCon product for next year at this year's GenCon, because we have 20,000+ people waiting for the announcement.
2. That's the product we do a public playtest for.
3. We're usually wrapping up this year's fall book right before GenCon (case in point, the text files for Bestiary 4 were last modified July 28, just a couple weeks before GenCon.
4. And then we're spending the week before GenCon finishing all of our prep for GenCon, in addition to any other products we expect to ship that week.
5. So formal in-house design for the announced-at-GenCon book often doesn't start until after we're back from GenCon. (Note, we've usually been discussing it for weeks or months beforehand, and in fact had NDA-required panels with fans at PaizoCon and DragonCon where we had a class design discussion about these classes). But the actuall, "the design team has time allocated to design this material for the playtest" doesn't occur until after GenCon.
6. And that's on top of all the other things we have to catch up on for being out of the office for a week.The above structure not likely to change, as announcing the next's year's product to customers, retailers, and distributors is much more important than you losing interest because it takes a couple months for the playtest to start.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I know that I alone am quite unimportant to Paizo as a buisness, but I honestly doubt that I'm the only one feeling the way that I do about this. So it might be worth considering internally.
Besides, you sounded a little agitated there, I wasn't out to get you, I was merely expressing an opinion.
Considering the heart attacks some people will have if a playtest class arrives looking somewhat unfinished (and not even to speak how other less Paizo-friendly boards would react ^^), I am happy that the writers are taking their time.
Still, I am feeling impatient, too. Although in the totally opposite way than Guest, it's me checking the story blog and the message board several times a day for mention of some news. If anything, I am getting more interested each day which passes.
Now, can we please get a hybrid Monk/Oracle element bender, Sean? ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, you sounded a little agitated there, I wasn't out to get you, I was merely expressing an opinion.
I'm not agitated, I just don't like people who argue for things based on assumptions when there's no factual basis to those assumptions at all.
I've been in this business for 18 years, and I know how scheduling works in a publishing company. We're already doing the writing on a book that doesn't come out until almost a year from now, we can't just "start working on it earlier" so the playtest starts right after we announce the book.
I'm sorry that you think 2 months after a product announcement is too long to wait to start an open playtest that (1) requires ten or more employees to put together, (2) will be downloaded by 10,000 people, and (3) significantly affects the development and completion of our biggest book of 2014. It's a serious thing, a big thing, an important thing, and we're not going to rush it just because you're having a hard time paying attention for those 2 months.
Hmmm... did I just read something like an approximate date for the playtest there, or was it just my overactive and hyped-up imagination? :p Because if this means that the playtest will start late this month, I'll do a happy dance. :D
I assume that when the developers are ready to announce the play-test it is because they have the actual product ready for testing, not because they just thought it would be funny to announce it something they’ve been kicking around at the office for a couple of days.Your assumption is incorrect.
1. We usually announce our GenCon product for next year at this year's GenCon, because we have 20,000+ people waiting for the announcement.
2. That's the product we do a public playtest for.
3. We're usually wrapping up this year's fall book right before GenCon (case in point, the text files for Bestiary 4 were last modified July 28, just a couple weeks before GenCon.
4. And then we're spending the week before GenCon finishing all of our prep for GenCon, in addition to any other products we expect to ship that week.
5. So formal in-house design for the announced-at-GenCon book often doesn't start until after we're back from GenCon. (Note, we've usually been discussing it for weeks or months beforehand, and in fact had NDA-required panels with fans at PaizoCon and DragonCon where we had a class design discussion about these classes). But the actuall, "the design team has time allocated to design this material for the playtest" doesn't occur until after GenCon.
6. And that's on top of all the other things we have to catch up on for being out of the office for a week.The above structure not likely to change, as announcing the next's year's product to customers, retailers, and distributors is much more important than you losing interest because it takes a couple months for the playtest to start.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I know that I alone am quite unimportant to Paizo as a buisness, but I honestly doubt that I'm the only one feeling the way that I do about this. So it might be worth considering internally.
Besides, you sounded a little agitated there, I wasn't out to get you, I was merely expressing an opinion.
I think in the perfect world Paizo would love to do what you suggest, but they are just too small a company to pull it off. The industry pretty much demands they have a big announcement at Gencon as well as realize several important products at this event (the fall AP and new hardcover). It's pretty typical for the Gencon crunch to hammer into their product schedule...for instance I think a lot of November products just got pushed back a month. Certainly the staff would rather not work all weekend to deal with the Gencon/Paizocon crunch or getting product lines caught up. And fans can be pretty damn picky...the playtest has to be polished and well worked out before release. I suspect in an ideal world a new playtest announcement with dates would make a fantastic announcement, and maybe as Paizo's/Pathfinders popularity increases, we will see some changes in scheduling.
As for your other suggestions, I tend to prefer to prestige classes that are campaign specific, but sure, there are probably some design space for new ones like Thief Guild Master, Merchant Prince, Royal Bodyguard, etc. Although personally I think there should be options to play generic versions roles like [Master] Spy or Mystic Theurge off the bat.
personally I think there should be options to play generic versions roles like [Master] Spy or Mystic Theurge off the bat.
We agree on that one. Things like the Thurge and the spy could easily have been full classes in their own right. What I’m looking for is the corner cases, the things that can easily be done with a few of the base classes, but would gain from being available to everyone.
Second problem: Prerequisites.Prestige classes are known – and hated – for their, often, strange or excessive requirements, which often makes little sense to most of us. A class like the Master Spy has a good Will save and gain a few abilities that help out with preventing mind control, and yet, it has Iron Will as a requirement.
What I propose is that prestige classes eliminate feat requirements, keeping the base attack and skill prerequisites and adding story prerequisites.
Example: Dragon Slayer would have a base attack requirement, knowledge (arcana) and probably survival and knowledge (dungeoneering) as well. Then it would have the story requirement of having to slay a dragon of a certain hit dice, to turn theory into praxis.
Now anyone can fulfill a base attack requirement and a reasonable skill requirement, but you’d have to go find an actual dragon to fulfill the story prerequisite and gain entrance into the prestige class. So we’re back at having a feeling of fulfillment.
While I agree with some strange prerequisites your approach would favour certain classes. And that would be those that are, already, ahead in their field.
For example a dragon slayer PRC needing three skill prereqs and no feat would be a pain in the backside to reach for a fighter (needing an int bonus and still using up all his skills) while not needing what he has plenty of, the feats. The ranger on the other hand would benefit because he has lots of skills but few feats.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see this discussion (which has moved away from the original point, I feel, but that's the nature of forum threads, really) is that it boils down to a misunderstanding/misinterpretation/misconception of the word "soon".
To my 3 year old son, "soon" means "in the next 10 seconds".
To me "soon" means different things, depending in context: if I'm at work, it usually means "this week", when I'm talking to a video game developer, it means "in the next year", and in the grand land of publishing it seems to mean "this quarter".
So when I see SKR saying (to paraphrase) "I know what we meant when we said 'soon'. It doesn't match what you thought we meant. Your misunderstanding is not our problem, it's yours. Don't tell us we're making mistakes unless you know everything that affects what 'soon' means to us." I don't see him being aggressive, nor agitated. Sean doesn't sugar-coat things, though. He calls 'em as he sees 'em. He might be blunt, and some may find him offensive, but it's not his job to treat us all like special snowflakes who need validation. In my opinion, his posts are the best gauge of the in-office perspective of our requests and demands. You can bet your bottom dollar that if he says it, here, in public, then he is not the only one at Paizo who feels that way. He's just the one who steps up to the plate and puts his name to it. Got to respect a man who does that, even if you don't like/agree with what he says. He's telling it like it is.