Hey, there. I'd wanted to see if anyone else was well, noticing this and if so what your thoughts were regarding it. That is, I think Pathfinder's style is changing.
In the older era, classes like the fighter worked well with 2 skill points, because their primary focus was on combat. Likewise, the rogue or thief had their focus on sneaking and other, more out of combat utility. Each had their own, separate roles that they could fulfill.
In the newer era, the ideal seems to be: "every class has a way to contribute to every part of the game, just in different ways." In this era, the desire is that every class be a "fighter," though in different ways (an example here is the Investigator or the War Priest, who each have their own way to challenge their lower BAB). Each class should also possess more "out of combat utility," as well, which newer classes such as the witch and inquisitor possess.
Has anyone else noticed it, and if so--would its result be more for the design of more and different classes than your fighter and rogue, rather than revising them?
This doesn't ask if either of these classes are favorites, or if the classes themselves are good, or bad. It more asks if say, this era/style change IS a thing, and if classes which are too role-specialized in one area need to be broken up and diversified in order to fit the new era.
Summary: RPGs and RPG styles evolve. We have only to look at the era surrounding Nobilis, oWoD, and contrast it with times when crunchier games were the norm. Are we looking at one, now, within Pathfinder? What does that mean for older classes, which are more singularly roled?
I understand the ideas you are expressing but I am struggling to understand the question(s).
Fair enough. I tend to get wordy from time to time.
1. Is this a trend anyone else is noticing?
2. If yes, do you think this emerging trend should or will impact some of the older classes, and if so, how would you like it to develop?
1. Yes.
2. Yes, and hopefully it'll diversify the classes allowing them to tackle a number of concepts more than mediocre-ly. The crafty Rogue should be just as effective as the thug Rogue despite it's current state. In combat or otherwise.
If I'm understanding this correctly then I'll just say this.
Having something to contribute meaningfully, in all situations, should be the pinnacle of design. Twiddling your thumbs and allowing the far better designed classes that CAN function in most situations handle the problem is a definition of fun that I don't understand.
Everyone should be able to do combat effectively since the majority can already do so effectively. Out of Combat, everyone should have an ability to influence the world around them. The second bit frustrates me as it is mentioned often thats where roleplaying comes in and such. However I have no interest in roleplaying mediocrity.
I will state how I look at a Diplomacy check. I roll the die. I got a 26. I roleplay eloquence and good reasoning. Rolling low means I stuttered, said something I shouldn't have and so forth. The roleplaying comes after the mechanics of the situation because if I do otherwise things come out skewed like the speech writer busts out an amazing display but then rolls a 1 so everyone laughs at him anyways despite how obviously awesome his speech was.
|
I do think it is a trend yes. I imagine if a PF 2.0 is ever released they will do some work on the single-role focused classes. Then again, they have released several rules splats and they dont seem to offer a whole lot to single-role focused classes. The options just seem to add to whats already there then what is missing. Personally I'd like to see every class get MAD but thats off topic.
This isn't old versus new. It's Bob versus Fred. There have always been players who wanted more generalized characters. They just didn't have a place to complain to the designers en masse. And as LazarX often points out, the message board culture is a poor reflection of the average table experience. While style distribution does indeed change over time, there are still plenty of folks, old and new, who like the way the classes are now, and plenty who would rather they had more out-of-specialty abilities.
As for out-of-combat utility, witch and inquisitor aren't great examples of a paradigm shift. Any caster, even the magus, has out-of-combat utility built into the class. The reason newer classes in general tend to be more diverse is that the "fixed" roles have already been covered thoroughly, so there's little point in introducing more.
I just like classes with options set in a general theme. Tons and tons and tons of options. It reflects in my freelance work.
|
|
I do see something like that trend, yeah. And I think it's good.
See, I think each playable class should be able to do something worthwhile during:
- Any activity that takes up a large % of the game time (combat, social, investigating)
- Any activity with high stakes (combat!)
- Any activity that tends to be the decisive confrontation/scene of the adventure, determining success or failure (combat!)
Combat can take so long, that it's just impolite not to give everyone a role in it.
Ironically, since the level/HP/BAB/Save system ensures that equal-level PCs all have vaguely comparable combat potential, and the game has elaborate combat mechanics, combat is also usually the decisive challenge for adventure success.
There's no level-based pressure on PCs to improve in areas such as social skills. A wizard gets HP whether he asked for them or not; he doesn't get level-based increase in Diplomacy if he spent the points on more Knowledge. So there's a good chance that some PCs will lack social skills. This means that a social challenge as adventure climax is less suitable. Add to that the issue that such a challenge probably balances on 1-4 dice rolls, compared to dozens of rolls and actions in combat, and a social climax may feel a bit anticlimactic or random.
Investigation: see social.
===
So there are good reasons for giving everyone something to do in combat. But should the knife cut both ways? Should fighters be "forced" to be able to do noncombat stuff too?
Yes, I think so.
I haven't really figured out how yet, although the current topics about higher-powered skills seem promising.
I do see something like that trend, yeah. And I think it's good.
See, I think each playable class should be able to do something worthwhile during:
- Any activity that takes up a large % of the game time (combat, social, investigating)
- Any activity with high stakes (combat!)
- Any activity that tends to be the decisive confrontation/scene of the adventure, determining success or failure (combat!)Combat can take so long, that it's just impolite not to give everyone a role in it.
Ironically, since the level/HP/BAB/Save system ensures that equal-level PCs all have vaguely comparable combat potential, and the game has elaborate combat mechanics, combat is also usually the decisive challenge for adventure success.
There's no level-based pressure on PCs to improve in areas such as social skills. A wizard gets HP whether he asked for them or not; he doesn't get level-based increase in Diplomacy if he spent the points on more Knowledge. So there's a good chance that some PCs will lack social skills. This means that a social challenge as adventure climax is less suitable. Add to that the issue that such a challenge probably balances on 1-4 dice rolls, compared to dozens of rolls and actions in combat, and a social climax may feel a bit anticlimactic or random.
Investigation: see social.
===
So there are good reasons for giving everyone something to do in combat. But should the knife cut both ways? Should fighters be "forced" to be able to do noncombat stuff too?
Yes, I think so.
I haven't really figured out how yet, although the current topics about higher-powered skills seem promising.
Social climaxes don't merely hinge on skill rolls. The skills provide benefits and open up more options, but ultimately it's the player's choices that determine the outcome. Not every social interaction between PC and NPC is Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate.
Doubly so for Investigation. A party should be able to solve a mystery barely using skills at all. Skills just make it easier, providing more information and more options as well as added background to the story. Designing really good investigation and social climaxes is not easy, though, and the GM must be willing to accept that a lot of that work may just get tossed when the PCs decide to say "screw it" and attack the most likely suspect. : D. A badly designed or badly executed investigation can tank a campaign, as happened in the last campaign I played--it just dragged and dragged getting nowhere fast.
To me, the perfect scenario is one that can theoretically be solved by combat, social skills, other skills, or even player choices alone. I'd be as happy with an evening spent without a single die roll as an evening spent in a succession of combats and/or skill challenges, provided that the narrative was excellent and that the players felt like their choices mattered. Mechanics mostly exist to resolve conflicts; they are not necessarily at the forefront of play.
Then again, sometimes I just want to stat an "ENOUGH TALK!" barbarian and throw him into the Obligatory Coliseum. : D
1. Is this a trend anyone else is noticing?
2. If yes, do you think this emerging trend should or will impact some of the older classes, and if so, how would you like it to develop?
1. In Pathfinder and in D&D, yes. In RPGs in general, no. For every game that evolves in one direction, there tends to be a replacement that fills the gap it left.
2. For Pathfinder, what I'd like to see is a continuation (and extension) of the ability to customize your character in enough ways that no matter what style of game you want to play, there'll be an option there to do it. Unfortunately, that also tends to clash with the people that want "trap options" removed. Now, there's a difference there between things that aren't balanced (and need fixing), and things that are more situational in nature (taking an option where you gain more power in daylight when your campaign is set in the Underdark isn't a trap option, it's just kinda silly to take it in that campaign ;) )
Sometimes an option works great in game A, but horribly in game B, simply because of a difference in the way those two games are played. I'd rather see those options included so those that don't want them can remove them, than removed so nobody can use them.
Overall though, the one thing I don't want is to be forced into having equal combat viability across the board. Make it available, yes, but also provide options to trade it in for something else.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, and hopefully it'll diversify the classes allowing them to tackle a number of concepts more than mediocre-ly. The crafty Rogue should be just as effective as the thug Rogue despite it's current state. In combat or otherwise.
Part of my belief is that should this be a trend, that classes like the rogue fall out of place. That is, rogue as it exists is both too general a concept as well as dedicated too firmly towards a specific mechanical role.
The same goes for fighter--too specific a mechanical role, while at the same time being too general of a concept.
Under the trend I'm imagining exists, there would be no fighter or rogue class. There would be investigator and thief, for example, or warden and arcane swordslinger...and so on, with a broader set of skill points, supernatural abilities, and broader mechanical role.
Does that make sense?
1. Yes.
2. Yes, and hopefully it'll diversify the classes allowing them to tackle a number of concepts more than mediocre-ly. The crafty Rogue should be just as effective as the thug Rogue despite it's current state. In combat or otherwise.Part of my belief is that should this be a trend, that classes like the rogue fall out of place. That is, rogue as it exists is both too general a concept as well as dedicated too firmly towards a specific mechanical role.
The same goes for fighter--too specific a mechanical role, while at the same time being too general of a concept.
Under the trend I'm imagining exists, there would be no fighter or rogue class. There would be investigator and thief, for example, or warden and arcane swordslinger...and so on, with a broader set of skill points, supernatural abilities, and broader mechanical role.
Does that make sense?
Yes. And I see that as a good thing. I dont like to be pigeonholed to be honest, and this offers a broader choice for all players.
I do hope something happens to make the vanilla options viable again; I favor the original classes, but lately it's like playing the game on Hard Mode, at least compared to the new power creep.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, and hopefully it'll diversify the classes allowing them to tackle a number of concepts more than mediocre-ly. The crafty Rogue should be just as effective as the thug Rogue despite it's current state. In combat or otherwise.Part of my belief is that should this be a trend, that classes like the rogue fall out of place. That is, rogue as it exists is both too general a concept as well as dedicated too firmly towards a specific mechanical role.
The same goes for fighter--too specific a mechanical role, while at the same time being too general of a concept.
Under the trend I'm imagining exists, there would be no fighter or rogue class. There would be investigator and thief, for example, or warden and arcane swordslinger...and so on, with a broader set of skill points, supernatural abilities, and broader mechanical role.
Does that make sense?
Yes. I'm entirely fine with that. So long as each of those guys can fight effectively and contribute effectively out of combat.
I have been thinking this very thing. Pondering the best way to approach it from both directions. My own thoughts run this way, Pathfinder gains ever more complexity limiting its appeal to novices and rewarding rule-lawyers and those with the extreme time required to become moderately familiar. It also allows a wide range of options and powers to create the 'builds' many players have come to expect.
They have an abbrieviated, 'Beginners Box'. This is an opportunity to create a game/system that appeals to the more casual/old school gamer at the same time. Ruthlessly prune the rules. Remove all but the base classes/races. Streamline the rules eliminate anything that adds needless complexity for its own sake or little gain. Make the mechanics easy to understand. Gms are encouraged to keep it simple but be flexible.
Support it on its own up to any level. Find an isolated corner of Golarion without gunslingers, alchemist pc's assembly line magic items etc. Keep the wonder without the power creep. Later, if the players/gm want to add alchemists with potion launching hand cannons or kobold/dragon/celestials as pcs then they can.
They don't need a whole new product just a streamline/repurposing of what they have. Satisfies both camps while leaving all options open. They would need a new/unexplored area of Golarion but that's the kind of things Devs and artists are for. Lots of stuff could be modified/repurposed while leaving blank areas old school GMs love to fill in.
I see it as a win-win.
I have been thinking this very thing. Pondering the best way to approach it from both directions. My own thoughts run this way, Pathfinder gains ever more complexity limiting its appeal to novices and rewarding rule-lawyers and those with the extreme time required to become moderately familiar. It also allows a wide range of options and powers to create the 'builds' many players have come to expect.
They have an abbrieviated, 'Beginners Box'. This is an opportunity to create a game/system that appeals to the more casual/old school gamer at the same time. Ruthlessly prune the rules. Remove all but the base classes/races. Streamline the rules eliminate anything that adds needless complexity for its own sake or little gain. Make the mechanics easy to understand. Gms are encouraged to keep it simple but be flexible.
Support it on its own up to any level. Find an isolated corner of Golarion without gunslingers, alchemist pc's assembly line magic items etc. Keep the wonder without the power creep. Later, if the players/gm want to add alchemists with potion launching hand cannons or kobold/dragon/celestials as pcs then they can.
They don't need a whole new product just a streamline/repurposing of what they have. Satisfies both camps while leaving all options open. They would need a new/unexplored area of Golarion but that's the kind of things Devs and artists are for. Lots of stuff could be modified/repurposed while leaving blank areas old school GMs love to fill in.
I see it as a win-win.
From my own queries (and starting some threads on the matter, as well as studying them) a great number of players would prefer that PF 2.0, should there ever be one, be a streamlined version of existing PF.
Streamlining in this case would mean better rules presentation as well as streamlined rules and rules sets.
This does not mean reducing the number of classes or options--merely cleaning up the underneath, as it were.
Anyhow, back to the thread. :) As a side note, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen this, and I'm curious how others might see the fighter class develop, for example.
Arcane swordslinger?
lI
From my own queries (and starting some threads on the matter, as well as studying them) a great number of players would prefer that PF 2.0, should there ever be one, be a streamlined version of existing PF.
Streamlining in this case would mean better rules presentation as well as streamlined rules and rules sets.
This does not mean reducing the number of classes or options--merely cleaning up the underneath, as it were.
Anyhow, back to the thread. :) As a...
Under my suggestion you could do just that. Full Pathfinder would keep the new rules (you cannot do too much about complexity when by their very nature new options means new rules but you could trim here and there).
The style is changing for several reasons but it comes down to time, philosophy, and the ever expanding nature of the rules. Each new race, class, trait, feat, skill, item etc adds new rules. Only by hacking it back like an overgrown blackberry bramble can you change rules creep.
You want to keep every option? Great they're all here and probably will be. Be aware that the path it's on leads only one direction. Complexity of rules will keep changing the feel of Pathfinder. Its inevitable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually suggested to one of my players looking to run a game for the first time to run the Beginner Box set, he loved the idea because the rules were so daunting to him. He ran his first game the other day and it was a blast.
I have been thinking this very thing. Pondering the best way to approach it from both directions. My own thoughts run this way, Pathfinder gains ever more complexity limiting its appeal to novices and rewarding rule-lawyers and those with the extreme time required to become moderately familiar. It also allows a wide range of options and powers to create the 'builds' many players have come to expect.
They have an abbrieviated, 'Beginners Box'. This is an opportunity to create a game/system that appeals to the more casual/old school gamer at the same time. Ruthlessly prune the rules. Remove all but the base classes/races. Streamline the rules eliminate anything that adds needless complexity for its own sake or little gain. Make the mechanics easy to understand. Gms are encouraged to keep it simple but be flexible.
Support it on its own up to any level. Find an isolated corner of Golarion without gunslingers, alchemist pc's assembly line magic items etc. Keep the wonder without the power creep. Later, if the players/gm want to add alchemists with potion launching hand cannons or kobold/dragon/celestials as pcs then they can.
They don't need a whole new product just a streamline/repurposing of what they have. Satisfies both camps while leaving all options open. They would need a new/unexplored area of Golarion but that's the kind of things Devs and artists are for. Lots of stuff could be modified/repurposed while leaving blank areas old school GMs love to fill in.
I see it as a win-win.
The problem is the cohort of current PF players who would drop down to getting the beginner stuff. All revenue isn't equal - the margins on their current product could easily worsen without a compensating boost to the profitability of the BB stuff (especially given the low price point they strive for with the intro stuff).
Maybe the drop off would be compensated for by the uptake of new BB graduates (who won't currently try PF). We're not in a position to tell, but I can't think of anyone other than Lisa and Vic (and Erik, Chris and whoever else attends the hi falutin' finance meetings...?) better placed to make that call.
There's a niche and a need to simplify Pathfinder, unless they want it to look like the federal codes. Whether or not they could exploit that is up to them. They're the pros and have produced the finest 'new school' rpg out there hands down. Could they hit both sides of the market and hit the wave from both ends? Who knows.
Keeping beginners box cheap or even pdf. Epub print on demand isn't just the way gaming will go, all publishing will go that way. They proved the core books, set the standard maybe make suggestions for authors who want that Pathfinder imprint let third party folks do the heavy lifting/longterm production of adventure paths modules etc within their Pathfinder system (whether full or beginner) and focus on streamline improvement esp of the full system.
Just my two coppers
Karl
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's possible to strike a nice balance between the current CRB and the Beginner's Box.
What I'd like to see, ideally, is a new CRB that takes the simplification of the Beginner's Box rules but is designed for the full L1-20, making it usable for playing the full range of APs and Modules. Trim the combat rules, cut down the number of classes in the core, list just the more essential spells.
Then move that removed material into addon books. The "full" version of the combat rules (with AoOs, etc) would be in something like the Ultimate Combat book, along with additional martial classes. Something similar for casters in Ultimate Magic, and so forth.
The result would be a simplified game CRB suitable for all players, with the option of complexity moved to additional rulebooks. Meanwhile, the trimmed CRB still works to shift the full range of modules, APs, and campaign setting books. You also end up with a nice slimline CRB with the most-used rules and not bulked up with a ton of spells and other options you're not using. I expect PFS players in particular would be delighted if they only needed to carry a 192-page CRB and a few additional printed sheets for their chosen class/feats/spells.