| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The classes that are the most often complained about are the ones that are the most broad conceptually or mechanically.The only class that gets complained about that really fits this description is the fighter, and the fighter being broad is incidental: The wizard, cleric, druid, witch, summoner, alchemist and oracle are just as broad and no one complains about them for that reason.
I was speaking about martially focued characters. In general, no one complains about classes that have magic because in this game magic can make up for just about any lack with preparation. So I agree that some of those concepts are broad, magic users generally benefit from spreading out, martial characters usually are the ones that have to specialize.
The more functional martial characters (babarian, paladin, ranger, and cavalier) all have relatively narrow themes and focused mechanics that allow them to excel at their 'thing'
Honestly can you point to a single instance other than yourself of someone claiming that the fighter sucks because he's too broad? Because that not only doesn't make much sense, but the whole idea that you somehow make the game better by taking away player choice just seems silly, especially given the kind of game we're talking about.
Who is taking away a choice? I am not saying make certain concepts not an option. I am saying make the choices more obvious. If you built a for instance 'free hand fighter' from the ground up, instead of making it an archetype for the generalized fighter, you have more room to put in interesting mechanics. Prime example is the gunslinger. They wanted to make a fighter that was good with guns. They set out to make it an alternate class for the fighter, but in the end, they made it it's own class to give them more design space. This is what I am talking about.
First its easier to build a character that is good at the thing it says on the box.Only if the tools are better. Which has nothing to do with how many different ways there are to build a class.
No, its downright easier. Even in a perfect world where all options are somehow 'equal', some options will be better for certain concepts. If I want to build sherlock holmes, the investigator puts all or most of the good choices for that concept in front of me by limiting the scope. It is easier to make the 'best' choice from 20 options then it is to make that choice from 200 options.
If the investigator, rogue, swashbuckler, ninja and rogue were all part of one class, the rogue, then making sherlock holmes out of this new mega rogue would be harder, because each choice would inherently require more examination of options. For new players in particular, the absolute best way to help them along is to hand them a base class that does the thing they want to do. Because then they just need to look through a few pages of material and make choices from that, instead of having dozens of pages of materials to choose from.
Its easier for gms to build npcs, or use prestated npcs if the options are divided among different classesNot really. You're trading one set of paperwork (building a character) for another (going through huge, bulky lists of limited, linear classes).
Again, categorically false. They arent even close to equivalent because of the reasons I mentioned above. If you have ninja, swashbuckler, slayer, and investigator, each of those have a specialized theme. As a dm I can make 1 choice among those themes and have now cut the options I have to make further choices from building my npc from by 75%. If they are all part of the same class, then each choice is essentially made from the same large pool. At low levels, not a huge difference. But making a 15th level character? A strongly themed base class is way easier then choosing options from a single all inclusive class.
you dont have to worry about imbalance from interactions.If this had been an actual concern in the first place it might have merit. It wasn't though, and people will always try to find the best combination (indeed the number of problems might increase because you're tripling the number of moving parts).
How is separating things increasing the number of moving parts? Its reducing them. If you put everything into one class you have to worry about them all interacting without any kind of penalty. If you separate them out, you dont have to worry about a class that can say, smite evil, rage, and gain weapon training all at their character level. This is what I mean by making the design space easier to balance. A paladin can get its potent smite evil, or a barbarian its rage because the designers know what they are working with. If as a character I could choose from any of those abilities, none of them could be as individually powerful and not cause balance issues.
Again, you're creating some weird equivalency between options being bad and options being varied, and the two aren't even close to mutually exclusive and the analysis falls apart on closer inspection. The classes have issues because their features are bad. Nothing more or less. Dividing or splitting those features to hamstring player creativity doesn't suddenly make anything better. You might personally want to do that because you don't like versatile classes with many options, but that has nothing to do with class power or balance. Nothing.
Assuming you create sufficient classes to cover the same space of cocepts, you are not hamstringing creativity when you separate them into different base classes. What you do is create room for individual options to be particularly good. Because you KNOW that they wont be combined with the other 'really good' options short of multiclasing (which has its own penalties in pathfinder).
As an example lets look at the slayer. They slayer is full bab, with effectively move action favored enemy on an opponent. He however doesnt have full sneak attack progression. If I however had the option of combining full sneak attack progression with favored target and full bab by not choosing track, stalker, etc, then I would now have a character with considerably more offense then was indended.
This is why I create the equivalence you mention. Since generally paizo airs on the side of caution when it comes to power for their martial characters, if I could simply choose from among the options a rogue, slayer, investigator and ninja gets, they would inherently make all of those options weaker to prevent the taking of all of a certain kind of option more out of balance with expectations.
Its why the summoner's eidolon is a problem so often. Its not that the eidolon gets more 'stuff' then other potent classes like the druid. Its that its got such a wide variety of options that can be chosen freely from, it can simply take all the options that make it better at a specific thing screw with the expectations of the system.
This played out really heavily in the star wars saga edition. Wizards was never known for its concervative mechanics. But because of the fact that everything a character got was either a talent or a feat and each talent was cramed into one of I think 5 or 6 base classes, every talent and feat had to be relatively lack luster, and most options took several choices to 'get going'. You couldnt have a potent early level ability like spell combat, or smite evil, because someone could simply take spellcombat, smite evil sequecially for a overpowered character.
Could you imagine is we had a single base class called fighter that had all the elements of the paladin, barbarian and fighter in one and could choose freely among them? Raging, smite with weapon training all at your level? You couldnt do it.
And mind you, I am not against versatile classes, or characters. In fact, in general, all my characters are versatile. I like characters that do several different things well. But what I want is to be able to say, hey, I want to do x, y and z well, and be able to look at a class and know that the class was inherently designed to be good at those things.
|
Wow! I didn't think this thread would have so many posts! I wish to thank all of you for contributing, it means a lot to me.
There are some really interesting thoughts that I read, such as a second monster codex and a few more NPC codexes (is that the correct plural?) Only the good people at paizo can say what happens of course, but they'll make the right calls. :-) Keep the posts coming, you guys have some great views and opinions. To encourage you, how about this little food for thought: if you were making a book (either a 5th bestiary, a 2nd NPC codex, etc) what would you put in it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree that in many ways a underlying problem for for fighters and rogues is that they are very generalized classes that overlap with a lot of niches and roles. That generic nature is in some ways going to compromise the abilities of the class, as instead of designing for one role, the class also needs to pull off x, y, z, and needs feats/abilities that can work for all of those roles. In contrast, a more narrowly defined class can be better targeted and supported.
To be fair, I think the lack of specialization isn't horrible for the fighter. I know a lot of people who like to play Pathfinder but just are not that invested in the game. They are happy with a class which doesn't have fiddly bits like spells or pools to deal with, and are okay with "I hit it with my sword"
Rogues are a bit more problematic. They have fiddly bits like talents, and getting off sneak attack damage is more complicated. So they lack the casual player appeal of fighter. Rogues are probably fine if they are the only skill-monkey/sneaky jack of all trades in a group, but they generally are not going to perform as well at certain tasks and more specialized overlapping classes. I personally would prefer the rogue being replaced with a thief class that was all about scouting/sneaking/stealing/trap disarming, with the assassin rouge category getting taken over by Ninjas/Slayers, and the con-man/fast talker taken over by Bard.
I suspect that Pathfinder will never have an edition shift like the one from AD&D 2E to D&D 3E, D&D 3.5 to D&D 4e, or D&D 4E to D&D 5E. On the other hand, I could very well see a shift of the magnitude of the one from AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E or D&D 3.0 to D&D 3.5 -- the original shift from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder was of that magnitude, after all. I guess it will happen whenever there is a greater desire to overhaul the problems with the core rules than to add yet more supplemental material -- and I would not even attempt to predict when that would happen.
Wow! I didn't think this thread would have so many posts! I wish to thank all of you for contributing, it means a lot to me.
There are some really interesting thoughts that I read, such as a second monster codex and a few more NPC codexes (is that the correct plural?) Only the good people at paizo can say what happens of course, but they'll make the right calls. :-) Keep the posts coming, you guys have some great views and opinions. To encourage you, how about this little food for thought: if you were making a book (either a 5th bestiary, a 2nd NPC codex, etc) what would you put in it?
For Bestiary 5, I would explicitly make it either Sci-fi themed (which would be easy with Iron Gods and Reign of Winter AP's to draw from) or have it focused on the New World, to help support any sort of Arcadia AP/setting.
NPC codex 2 = all the new classes/alternative/prestige classes from APG, UC, and UM, plus the new prestige classes from Inner Sea Gods.
Honestly I can think of a bunch of more rulebook line books I would like to see, beyond just codexes and bestiaries.
Any new edition of Pathfinder is likely to be a revision/clean-up of the current edition, with an emphasis on backward compatibility.
-Skeld
Well...I think as time goes on there will be less consideration of compatibility with 3.5. Fewer and fewer groups use substantial quantities of WOTC 3.5 material after all.
That said I don't expect a huge 3.5-4.0 overhaul of the rules. I think the Devs are overall happy with the framework of the rules, and would just tweak a few classes and corner issues, plus reorganize and clarify the presentation of rules.
|
|
Wow! I didn't think this thread would have so many posts! I wish to thank all of you for contributing, it means a lot to me.
There are some really interesting thoughts that I read, such as a second monster codex and a few more NPC codexes (is that the correct plural?) Only the good people at paizo can say what happens of course, but they'll make the right calls. :-) Keep the posts coming, you guys have some great views and opinions. To encourage you, how about this little food for thought: if you were making a book (either a 5th bestiary, a 2nd NPC codex, etc) what would you put in it?
For Bestiary 5, I would explicitly make it either Sci-fi themed (which would be easy with Iron Gods and Reign of Winter AP's to draw from) or have it focused on the New World, to help support any sort of Arcadia AP/setting.
NPC codex 2 = all the new classes/alternative/prestige classes from APG, UC, and UM, plus the new prestige classes from Inner Sea Gods.
Honestly I can think of a bunch of more rulebook line books I would like to see, beyond just codexes and bestiaries.
Cool, I like the way you think MMCJawa! :-)
Any new edition of Pathfinder is likely to be a revision/clean-up of the current edition, with an emphasis on backward compatibility.
-Skeld
Well...I think as time goes on there will be less consideration of compatibility with 3.5. Fewer and fewer groups use substantial quantities of WOTC 3.5 material after all.
That said I don't expect a huge 3.5-4.0 overhaul of the rules. I think the Devs are overall happy with the framework of the rules, and would just tweak a few classes and corner issues, plus reorganize and clarify the presentation of rules.
Also, the 3.5 rules are getting harder to get ahold of. In time, they won't be around at all. And that's even with WotC re-releasing them.
To be fair, I think the lack of specialization isn't horrible for the fighter. I know a lot of people who like to play Pathfinder but just are not that invested in the game. They are happy with a class which doesn't have fiddly bits like spells or pools to deal with, and are okay with "I hit it with my sword"
Certainly something simple and straightfoward like the fighter will always be necessary. But that doesnt mean it has to be generic. It in fact will be easier for those who are less invested or new to the game if there was a greater division in the fighter. Then they wouldnt have to be as careful about their feat choices. But I do think extermely simple classes without 'fiddly' bits will always suffer in the long run.
Rogues are a bit more problematic. They have fiddly bits like talents, and getting off sneak attack damage is more complicated. So they lack the casual player appeal of fighter. Rogues are probably fine if they are the only skill-monkey/sneaky jack of all trades in a group, but they generally are not going to perform as well at certain tasks and more specialized overlapping classes. I personally would prefer the rogue being replaced with a thief class that was all about scouting/sneaking/stealing/trap disarming, with the assassin rouge category getting taken over by Ninjas/Slayers, and the con-man/fast talker taken over by Bard.
That is more or less my thought. My current ideal division is Swashbuckler (daring charismatic duelist type), slayer (murderer/thug), dirty fighter/thief - current rogue but with a specialization in using the dirty trick combat maneuver to actually make use of all those sneak attack dice, ninja (assasin/mystical rogue), and investigator (skill focused intelligence based character).
If i had to guess, i would say im 90% satisfied with the rules as they are right now, minor fixes are needed here and there but nothing that should require 5 years of development...
The problem with fixing your 10% of the rules is that other people get rules they like changed. It seems there are very few people on the boards that say - pathfinder is broken, here are the 50, 60 or 70 % of the rules that need fixed.
If Paizo can keep most of the people 90% satisfied with the rules, then they are doing their jobs.
To be fair, I think the lack of specialization isn't horrible for the fighter. I know a lot of people who like to play Pathfinder but just are not that invested in the game. They are happy with a class which doesn't have fiddly bits like spells or pools to deal with, and are okay with "I hit it with my sword"
Certainly something simple and straightfoward like the fighter will always be necessary. But that doesnt mean it has to be generic. It in fact will be easier for those who are less invested or new to the game if there was a greater division in the fighter. Then they wouldnt have to be as careful about their feat choices. But I do think extermely simple classes without 'fiddly' bits will always suffer in the long run.
That is more or less my thought. My current ideal division is Swashbuckler (daring charismatic duelist type), slayer (murderer/thug), dirty fighter/thief - current rogue but with a specialization in using the dirty trick combat maneuver to actually make use of all those sneak attack dice, ninja (assasin/mystical rogue), and investigator (skill focused intelligence based character).Rogues are a bit more problematic. They have fiddly bits like talents, and getting off sneak attack damage is more complicated. So they lack the casual player appeal of fighter. Rogues are probably fine if they are the only skill-monkey/sneaky jack of all trades in a group, but they generally are not going to perform as well at certain tasks and more specialized overlapping classes. I personally would prefer the rogue being replaced with a thief class that was all about scouting/sneaking/stealing/trap disarming, with the assassin rouge category getting taken over by Ninjas/Slayers, and the con-man/fast talker taken over by Bard.
I also really really want a 20 level base Spy class, which would be sort of a Charisma focused Rogue. Forgot to include that in my "divisions".
"What" - The concern I would most like to see addressed
The one thing I would like to see addressed in any major or semi-major rules update is the vast difference in martial character damage (at mid to high levels) between a full attack and a single attack. (The difference is probably two-fold by levels 6 to 9 and threefold from 10 onward, on average, including things like haste. This is even more of a concern for certain builds - see below.) The vital strike line of feats is decent, but unfortunately extra weapon damage dice aren't enough to
"Why" - The Benefits of Solving this problem
• Two-weapon fighting could be useful on more than just a full attack. (The current full attack mechanic pushes martial characters towards Two-handed fighting, which deals more damage on a single attack and is already superior for other reasons - power attack, primarily.)
• Pounce would no longer make such a HUGE difference in martial character damage. (Currently, pounce allows martial characters to deal their massive full attack damage >75% of the time instead of <50% of the time.)
• Martial characters could be more mobile if moving 10 feet meant 2 attacks instead of 3, versus 1 attack instead of 3. (This is something that many players would like to see, myself being one of them, as it makes combat more dynamic.)
What I really want:
I actually don't want to increase or altar the total damage that a martial character deals during the course of his career - I'd like to smooth it out between (OMG FACE STOMPING AN ENEMY) full attack routines and (HAHA THAT TICKLES) single attacks. I think that would help martial characters to be able to more mobile on the battlefield, which is something players commonly want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any new edition of Pathfinder is likely to be a revision/clean-up of the current edition, with an emphasis on backward compatibility.
This is what I want. After our new Dev gets in there and answers a dozen+ FAQ's, I'd like to see a new CRB with all the FAQs. errata and what not put in there. There could be that fix to the Stealth skill too. A few minor other changes.
"What" - The concern I would most like to see addressed
The one thing I would like to see addressed in any major or semi-major rules update is the vast difference in martial character damage (at mid to high levels) between a full attack and a single attack.
I had a simple fix for this. Give the Fight the Vital strike chain for free, over levels. Heck, to avoid a "new" edition of the Fighter, there could be a archetype.
"The Mobile striker gives up Bravery and instead gets Iron Will @2nd, then The three vital strike feats @ level 6, 10, & 14. Mesh in Devastating Strike along the way. The MS gets Acrobatic instead of Handle Animal as a class skill."
"What" - The concern I would most like to see addressed
The one thing I would like to see addressed in any major or semi-major rules update is the vast difference in martial character damage (at mid to high levels) between a full attack and a single attack.I had a simple fix for this. Give the Fight the Vital strike chain for free, over levels. Heck, to avoid a "new" edition of the Fighter, there could be a archetype.
"The Mobile striker gives up Bravery and instead gets Iron Will @2nd, then The three vital strike feats @ level 6, 10, & 14. Mesh in Devastating Strike along the way. The MS gets Acrobatic instead of Handle Animal as a class skill."
Since a majority of a fighters damage doesnt come from his weapons damage dice, I dont think the vial strike feat as it stands helps much at all. Honestly in pathfinder 1.5 I would probably make vital strike free for everyone along with power attack, combat expertise and weapon finesse.
|
Also, the 3.5 rules are getting harder to get ahold of. In time, they won't be around at all. And that's even with WotC re-releasing them.Any new edition of Pathfinder is likely to be a revision/clean-up of the current edition, with an emphasis on backward compatibility.
-Skeld
Well...I think as time goes on there will be less consideration of compatibility with 3.5. Fewer and fewer groups use substantial quantities of WOTC 3.5 material after all.
That said I don't expect a huge 3.5-4.0 overhaul of the rules. I think the Devs are overall happy with the framework of the rules, and would just tweak a few classes and corner issues, plus reorganize and clarify the presentation of rules.
Allow me to clarify: I think any PF2e is going to emphasize backward compatibility to PF1e (3.5 by extension but not explicitly). Paizo now has a huge library of PF rules material (as do their customers) and they aren't going to want to invalidate it. Afterall, they saw the fallout when WotC announced 4e and many customers complained about all their 3.5e books being useless.
Didn't WotC just re-release the 3.5e core rulebooks?
-Skeld
Also, the 3.5 rules are getting harder to get ahold of. In time, they won't be around at all. And that's even with WotC re-releasing them.Any new edition of Pathfinder is likely to be a revision/clean-up of the current edition, with an emphasis on backward compatibility.
-Skeld
Well...I think as time goes on there will be less consideration of compatibility with 3.5. Fewer and fewer groups use substantial quantities of WOTC 3.5 material after all.
That said I don't expect a huge 3.5-4.0 overhaul of the rules. I think the Devs are overall happy with the framework of the rules, and would just tweak a few classes and corner issues, plus reorganize and clarify the presentation of rules.
Allow me to clarify: I think any PF2e is going to emphasize backward compatibility to PF1e (3.5 by extension but not explicitly). Paizo now has a huge library of PF rules material (as do their customers) and they aren't going to want to invalidate it. Afterall, they saw the fallout when WotC announced 4e and many customers complained about all their 3.5e books being useless.
Didn't WotC just re-release the 3.5e core rulebooks?
-Skeld
They have, but the rulebooks are hard to find and often out of stock (in addition to being limited in where you can find them). Instead, they've been focusing on all of the peripherals and supplementals.
Didn't WotC just re-release the 3.5e core rulebooks?
They did, and the PHB is a good investment as all the errata is seamless edited in. However, being the, company they are, they then put out some other books with nothing but new covers.
(ps- did you know that when you post your poster name and ID and avatar are there? No need to add a 'signature", which annoys some people)
|
Of course, if Paizo makes backwards compatibility a real emphasis, then likelihood of existing problems in the system actually being fixed, as opposed to having a fresh coat of paint hastily plastered over them, drops significantly.
The system was already 9 years old when Pathfinder came out, and had already undergone a prior revision. There comes a point where you have to realize that the problems that are left aren't something that can be eliminated without tearing down the entire system and building something new in it's place.
Paizo are very good at adventures and setting. They are, to be blunt, mediocre at mechanics. The CRB was nothing more than tweaks to 3.5. The APG was pretty good, but everything since then, rules-wise, has been underwhelming, to say the least.
That being said, as somewhat of a completionist, the sooner they move on to a new edition, the better. It'll give me the needed nudge in order to fully jump off the Pathfinder train.
|
|
Also, the 3.5 rules are getting harder to get ahold of. In time, they won't be around at all. And that's even with WotC re-releasing them.D&D Classics Webstore
Seems to me like it's pretty easy to get the 3.5 rules.
Also, the 3.5 rules are getting harder to get ahold of. In time, they won't be around at all. And that's even with WotC re-releasing them.D&D Classics WebstoreSeems to me like it's pretty easy to get the 3.5 rules.
Ah. I was incorrect. Thank you for the correction.
Of course, if Paizo makes backwards compatibility a real emphasis, then likelihood of existing problems in the system actually being fixed, as opposed to having a fresh coat of paint hastily plastered over them, drops significantly.
The system was already 9 years old when Pathfinder came out, and had already undergone a prior revision. There comes a point where you have to realize that the problems that are left aren't something that can be eliminated without tearing down the entire system and building something new in it's place.
Paizo are very good at adventures and setting. They are, to be blunt, mediocre at mechanics. The CRB was nothing more than tweaks to 3.5. The APG was pretty good, but everything since then, rules-wise, has been underwhelming, to say the least.
That being said, as somewhat of a completionist, the sooner they move on to a new edition, the better. It'll give me the needed nudge in order to fully jump off the Pathfinder train.
The issue of course is that yeah the setting and adventure stuff is good, but any sort of massive overhaul of the system (which for you would no doubt be revision towards a 1E style system) would render all the existing material obsolete for most players.
It also potentially creates a situation where they divide the fanbase...which if DnD Next is successful and thriving then might not be a great thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a game that still looks like Pathfinder on the surface but overhauled math. The big offenders.
Some spells and feats need to be rewritten/removed.
Class skills could be overhauled (4 skill points/level for fighters)
Easier grapple rules. Opposed strength checks, larger creature gets a +5 bonus.
Scaling buff spells go bye bye.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF 2? That's old news, I'm looking at what should be in PF 3. :P
Just kidding. Honestly, I agree that there's not so much wrong that it couldn't be fixed with an updated, polished, and tinkered core set. Go from 3.75 to 3.8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think when new rulesets get bandied about people get Myopia.
I imagine there are lots of games where people just use the CORE rulebook. Some people LOVE new rules, some don't. Some ignore all the capaign fluffy stuff that Paizo sort of excells at. RPG customers are actually really varied. There is no "sweet spot" demographically.
WotC likes new rulesets because it's incredibly profitable in the short term. If they can get everyone to switch, big IF. Paizo keeps doing New Rulebooks because lots of people like new rules. New rules though complicate everything. The more that gets published, the more stuff needs clarification, the more that stuff breaks down. I do not want a new edition to keep that cycle up. It's just not economically feasible for me to keep doing an Edition Rotation.
There is stuff that needs to be addressed in the longterm with PF.
*Mostly spells, and magic (the underlying concept of it), but mostly the spells.
*feats and scaling power metrics.
*stats and their various abuses.
*the underlying math at higher power levels.
*classes and class mechanics that just step all over other classes roles.
The basic mechanics are fine. It's just that the game isn't really streamlined to be mechanically balanced over a 20 level spread, it's pretty reliable for a 10 level spread though. Most of the "It's Broken!" complaints come up in groups that play higher up. This is not a widespread issue though, at least in my experience.
Balancing the high level math though is gonna be a power up for Beaters and a power down for casters. That's not gonna be extremely popular, especially with the rabid rules consumers. It's a catch 22 for Paizo.
I'd be dumbfounded that Jason doesn't have stuff written down for a new edition already, but he likes (and is good at) fluffy stuff too and I want Razmir stuff WAY WAY more than boring math tweaks.
There is a bunch of crunchy stuff left to do in the current PF edition.
*a simple mass combat system that doesn't go all Warhammer
**a cool naval subset to go with it
*** an even cooler aerial combat subset too
*space exploration rules
*Skill system buffs
*Item Crafting rules that actually make sense, are flexible, and don't grossly favor one group over another leading to wonky power disparities.
*more NPC "monster" books
*more alternate magic systems
*alternate weapon and armor systems
That's just stuff Paizo could do, not even scratching the stuff 3PP still have left.
*specialized campaign books
Hey, don't forget Temple of the Frog.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
plenty of great ideas in this, just to add my two cp...
I'd love to see a decent index. A comprehensive, index in each book - or maybe a standalone PDF since they're already printed.
Every gaming book I've seen has a very general index, it rarely covers more than the basics and certainly isn't good enough for specifics.
It's great that paizo has the PRD online, I appreciate it a LOT. But still, if I'm going to buy a hardcover rule book, please for the love of all things holy, fully index it.
Anyway, that's my personal pet peeve - so maybe not a great "expansion" but bookworms will love it :P
Unless/Until DSP Psionics is approved for PFS, it won't ever be fully accepted as 'covered.'- PsionicsJames Jacobs has repeatedly said no to this one. Dreamscarred Press covered it.Why is that so bloody important? The only venue where it makes the slightest difference is PFS play, which so many of the pundits here on this board will be happy to insist is strictly a "minority group".
Quite frankly I think that Dreamscarred's work is best left for home play, where a GM can control exactly how much of it he uses at his table and trim it for flavor.
Maybe it's the few that want to play psions or wilders or soulknives at a PFS table? If Pathfinder is an update of 3.5 and those were 3.5, maybe some just want that access. Not being able to take the up the walls for a rogue or monk or make an elan for the coolness of having a first level ascetic who doesn't need to eat or drink at a PFS table makes me a little sad.
I've always felt (looking at 3.5) that a psion was the sorcerer done right. You had more mutability in how you applied 'magic' and low level 'spells' could still be useful. It was/is pretty slick design.
Dreamscarred Press is working on a Magic of Incarnum Rework and I can't remember how far along they are on their Tome of Battle Rework. I have to say that they are probably my favorite third party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[
Maybe it's the few that want to play psions or wilders or soulknives at a PFS table? If Pathfinder is an update of 3.5 and those were 3.5, maybe some just want that access. Not being able to take the up the walls for a rogue or monk or make an elan for the coolness of having a first level ascetic who doesn't need to eat or drink at a PFS table makes me a little sad.
I've always felt (looking at 3.5) that a psion was the sorcerer done right. You had more mutability in how you applied 'magic' and low level 'spells' could still be useful. It was/is pretty slick design.
Dreamscarred Press is working on a Magic of Incarnum Rework and I can't remember how far along they are on their Tome of Battle Rework. I have to say that they are probably my favorite third party.
That's the thing. Pathfinder isn't an update of 3.5. It's a cousin that's been moving along a different evolutionary path. Even in 3.5, psionics was an odd duck. There was no particular dramatic space for it along side the other paths of magic, it was just there with it's strange Sci-fi/comics inclusion being shoehorned into a traditional fantasy setting. The few DMs that were comfortable working with it, were more than outnumbered by those who found it's presence jarring at best.
Yep...definitely no Science fiction elements in Pathfinder. Nope...None at all. Certainly there are no aliens, crashed spaceships, androids, or robots in the setting. Nope none of those at all are in Pathfinder...
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that pathfinder has reached the pinnacle of it's prime. So I ask you, what could they do next? (Please note, I don't know if anyone has done a thread like this).
For me, all I can see is them releasing one or two more bestiaries and/or a second NPC codex. But hey, there is plenty of possibilities for them. So let me know what you think, I will look forward to hearing from you! :-)
Pinnacle? I've been playing DnD since the the 70s and my perception has been that new editions never really improved the game for me. I think Pathfinder rules are stable and represent the best sandbox out there for fantasy RP. From that foundation it's all imagination, which is endless.
Is there anything wrong with say, Pathfinder focusing on new APs and tools for the next decade?
How about instead of more bestiaries, we see the same treatment given for traps, puzzles and mazes?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo seems to have very little, if any, love for traps. Go Grimtooth or GTFO.
What's the point of a puzzle book when 2/3 of the fanbase starts screaming bloody murder / metagaming if its anything beyond a INT check with a set DC? Because Odin forbid something be entertaining for the players if i can be reduced to a dice roll.
Mazes....never been a huge fan of anything beyond a pretty simple maze. It inevitable involves either metagaming by letting the party look at the entire maze, or multiple tedious sessions of wandering around aimlessly until the exit is accidentally stumbled upon.
It seems a lot of people who are old-time gamers have no love for traps either. So, I don't think it's limited to just Paizo.
I mean, sure, you missed a roll and the trap yanked you off your feet and started smacking you against walls while a magic mouth began to sing about body checking the walls... Sure, it finally ended when the trap dropped your character into a shredder, spat out the bloody remains in front of the party, and then animated them as a horrific undead... But isn't that fun?
(Most of my players would describe the above trap as boring and suggest I up the psychopathy for it >.>)
Maybe it's the few that want to play psions or wilders or soulknives at a PFS table? If Pathfinder is an update of 3.5 and those were 3.5, maybe some just want that access. Not being able to take the up the walls for a rogue or monk or make an elan for the coolness of having a first level ascetic who doesn't need to eat or drink at a PFS table makes me a little sad.
I've always felt (looking at 3.5) that a psion was the sorcerer done right. You had more mutability in how you applied 'magic' and low level 'spells' could still be useful. It was/is pretty slick design.
Dreamscarred Press is working on a Magic of Incarnum Rework and I can't remember how far along they are on their Tome of Battle Rework. I have to say that they are probably my favorite third party.
That is one of the beauties of the OGL -- nobody can stop anyone from doing something that the primary company isn't interested in. When Wizards of the Coast decided to make up a non-OGL version of D&D that was radically different from D&D 3.5e, they could not stop Paizo from coming up with Pathfinder. When Paizo expressed a lack of interest in updating D&D 3.5e psionics, that left Ultimate Psionics by Dreamscarred Press as the closest thing we are ever likely to have to an official Pathfinder update of psionics. As best I can tell, its only flaw as a Pathfinder product is that it wasn't published by Paizo. So, if you want psionics, why not go with that?
Paizo seems to have very little, if any, love for traps. Go Grimtooth or GTFO.
What's the point of a puzzle book when 2/3 of the fanbase starts screaming bloody murder / metagaming if its anything beyond a INT check with a set DC? Because Odin forbid something be entertaining for the players if i can be reduced to a dice roll.
Mazes....never been a huge fan of anything beyond a pretty simple maze. It inevitable involves either metagaming by letting the party look at the entire maze, or multiple tedious sessions of wandering around aimlessly until the exit is accidentally stumbled upon.
Part of it comes from the fact that puzzles are kind of metagamey...Just because you play a high intelligence Wizard, doesn't mean the player of that character is going to immediately know the answer. An someone playing a intelligence 7 barbarian might be the only person who knows the answer, even if by all rights his character shouldn't.
As far as Mazes go, they actually incorporate some guidelines for mazes in the 5th volume of Wrath of the Righteous, which seem like they would be a good approach.
I do think we need more traps and haunts, but not sure if there is enough demand or content for a hardcover book. Maybe someday down the line we can get an Advanced Gamemaster Guide...I think there are enough more specialized DM topics to make one worthwhile
Puzzles are a hard one as you can have an idiot barbarian being played by the smartest person in the group, while the dumbest person is playing the beyond genius wizard and yet the barbarian is the one answering the puzzles.
It kind of breaks my immersion when that happens.