|
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! :-)
|
This is the PFS General Discussion Forum.
I think you meant to post this in the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion Forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the leveling off of rules supplements is an issue, we'll find out by December. And knowing Paizo, they'll take steps to fix it. They answer only to themselves and they are pretty much their own investors, so they have a very vested interest in making certain they succeed.
That said, I hope they continue to succeed. To call what they produce a mere quality product would be an insult to the amount of work and care they put into it. And that's even with all of the problems they have to work out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of holding off on big purchases and seeing how D&DN turns out. I would not mind a fixed 3.x type game and back wards compatibility is not required.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And on a more serious note, hypothetical hardcovers that were requested insofar include:
- Psionics
- Book of 9 Swords equivalent
- Strongholds and Kingdoms
- Book of Spells
- Book of Feats
- Book of Archetypes
- Book of PrCs
- Advanced Race Guide 2 (TROX WILL HAVE THEIR DUE)
- NPC Codex 2 (APG classes)
- NPC Codex 3 (ACG classes)
- n Bestiaries (where n = single digit number for most sane people, double digit number for Sincubus/Gancanagh/Whatever alias he uses now)
- Monster Codex 2
- Planes
- Dragon Empires
- Southern Garund
- Absalom
- Spire of Nex
And that's just off the top of my head.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some more requested hardcovers off the top of my head:
- Arcadia Hardcover
- Sarusan Hardcover
- Distant Worlds Hardcover (or even one per planet...I'd buy the hell out of a Verces book)
- Revised AP Books (ala RotRL Anniversary Edition, CotCT and Kingmaker get brought up a lot for this)
- Book set some time in Golarion's past (this one seems unlikely due to Paizo people's comments, I admit...but I've seen it requested)
-Inner Sea Gods X (Again, X being a single digit number, Maybe not actually focusing on the Inner Sea, and thus named differently, but same concept)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also a hardcover book dedicated to skill monkey characters.
The is still a lot of design space for new character classes, so more books along the lines of ACG/UC/UM are possible
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any new design ideas! I guess the professional game designers are done developing anything new.
:/
- Psionics
James Jacobs has repeatedly said no to this one. Dreamscarred Press covered it.
- Strongholds and Kingdoms
Rules for running a kingdom are part of Ultimate Campaign, but I agree we need this book.
So, yeah, there's probably a massive load of more books they can do.
Edit: Corrected. Thanks, DMW!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- PsionicsJames Joyce has repeatedly said no to this one. Dreamscarred Press covered it.
If you mean James Jacobs...this is incorrect. He's said they aren't doing it right now, and that if they do do it it'll be 'Psychic Magic' instead of Psionics and be another kind of magic (like arcane and divine) and thus use Vancian casting rather than power points...but has never said it'll never happen.
If you mean James Jacobs...this is incorrect. He's said they aren't doing it right now, and that if they do do it it'll be 'Psychic Magic' instead of Psionics and be another kind of magic (like arcane and divine) and thus use Vancian casting rather than power points...but has never said it'll never happen.- PsionicsJames Joyce has repeatedly said no to this one. Dreamscarred Press covered it.
He has also stated he doesn't like the term "psionics." And to be honest, I think a lot of people think of 3.5 psionics when they ask for a psionics book (I know all of the ones I have seen have been).
Also, edited my post to correct his name. I dunno why, but I keep thinking of him as a "Joyce." I blame one of my players.
|
|
He has also stated he doesn't like the term "psionics." And to be honest, I think a lot of people think of 3.5 psionics when they ask for a psionics book (I know all of the ones I have seen have been).
I think it's more a desire not to confuse people by calling an entirely different thing Psionics than it is a real dislike (ie: I don't think Paizo disliked Epic as a term, but they used Mythic instead because it's a whole different thing...I think psionics is like that).
And at least half the people I've seen ask for such a book have been perfectly happy with the version he proposed...so it's definitely a possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's past time for new edition planning to start. They'll make a mess if the wind up having to rush one and PF is showing cracks where they changed things from 3.5 in addition to some of 3.5's perennial issues. I'd rather they take 5 years simmering PF2 on the back burner at 20% and trickling out prototypes the way B9S was allegedly a prototype for 4th edition than put all their effort into getting it out in a year.
Paizo doesnt do anything 20%. If they were going to do a new edition it would be a massive playtest of the scale that the beta rules went under. They have a commitment to transparency and openess to their rules as well as public discourse. That cant be done at 20%. Not to mention their flagship products are still not rpg books. They are adventures. And those arent showing any signs at all of 'cracking' and dnd 'next' wont have any impact on them. In fact if dnd next does what it says it will, it might even INCREASE adventure sales as people buy aps and convert them to next.
To that end I'd like to see something similar to Expanded Arcana that can try to fix some of the underlying issues with things like stealth, feinting, and combat maneuvers with "optional" rules, and I'd like to see them used in society play so they actually get tested thoroughly.
A book of optional rules is entirely possible. We've gotten a chunk of it at various different places. But a big book of it might be cool
I think the ACG may be a good start, actually. Or not. Depends what the investigator and slayer wind up looking like. I'd like to see true replacements for all the problem classes that can be re-merged into the classics when second edition comes around so replacing the rogue is a start.
Re-combining it would be a mistake. The whole problem with the rogue (and the monk) is that it tries to do too much. The ninja, slayer, and investigator all break pieces of hte rogue out and focus on those, doing them well. They should stay separate, and I have a feeling they will. Whether there is an actual rogue class and what it looks like in the next edition of pathfinder might be interesting, but I'd love it if instead we saw a 'trickster', a ninja, a swashbuckler, a slayer, and an investigator as all individual functional classes. Trying to cram too much into a single base class is a problem for a game like pathfinder where there is a strong connection between the concepts they are meant to represent and the rules themselves.
|
|
Psionics...
I would hope that any focused book on the ol' Psionic classes would use one of two mechanics.
- Spontainous casting with augmented power pools for main casters
- power choice trees with wild talents and Ki pools that work much like the monk.
I want the Soul Knife class and Pyrokinetisist PrC, without the horrid Power Point (Mana) attatchment.
He has also stated he doesn't like the term "psionics." And to be honest, I think a lot of people think of 3.5 psionics when they ask for a psionics book (I know all of the ones I have seen have been).I think it's more a desire not to confuse people by calling an entirely different thing Psionics than it is a real dislike (ie: I don't think Paizo disliked Epic as a term, but they used Mythic instead because it's a whole different thing...I think psionics is like that).
And at least half the people I've seen ask for such a book have been perfectly happy with the version he proposed...so it's definitely a possibility.
I've seen quite a few unhappy with it, but that's more because they're unhappy with Vancian magic in general. IIRC, I think I suggested he used the Witch as a base idea for how to structure it...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want the Soul Knife class and Pyrokinetisist PrC, without the horrid Power Point (Mana) attatchment.
But, neither the soulknife nor the pyrokineticist use power points in their class features. Can't you do that now?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesnt do anything 20%. If they were going to do a new edition it would be a massive playtest of the scale that the beta rules went under. They have a commitment to transparency and openess to their rules as well as public discourse. That cant be done at 20%. Not to mention their flagship products are still not rpg books. They are adventures. And those arent showing any signs at all of 'cracking' and dnd 'next' wont have any impact on them. In fact if dnd next does what it says it will, it might even INCREASE adventure sales as people buy aps and convert them to next.Five years of trickling concepts is playtesting, and better than a big playtest where people don't really have time to digest the rules. They'd have to do that too at the end, but playtesting really needs more time than any company can afford to dedicate to it. Games that have the ability to push patches and the subscription model to support it keep teams revising the rules year after year. A dead tree product has less ability to revise after publication than a MMO so they really need to get it right the second time. No one can get it right the second time so the next best thing is to prototype elements as independent products so when they start the second edition playtest everything that could be put out independently is already on the second or third publicly seen version depending on if it showed up in the individual playtest for the book it was first published in.
The AP sales may not be faltering, but people are getting more dissatisfied with the game rules and that's eventually going to become an opening for another system to take away the customers who aren't satisfied with the lack of revision.
How certain are you that fewer people are satisfied now then say, 3 years ago? Do we really have any numbers on this? In fact paizo's general audience has grown rather considerably over the last few years. Its possible the growing number of 'disatisfied' people is a function of simply having a much larger audience in general.
And I also think a much LARGER portion of their customer base would be disatisfied to the point of rejection at the prospect of a pathfinder 2.0. Many of us dont want a new edition of the game. Alternate rules, sure, but we are tired of the constant merry go round of editions. I rejoice in the fact that paizo has consistently stated they still dont evne have anything on the drawing board for pathfinder 2.0. Is the game perfect? No, but I'm glad to have it stable.
Finally we have a company that doesnt live or die on selling new rulebooks, thus having a vested interest in the new thing being the shiny thing, and instead focus on tools to tell a specific kind of story, and more adventures for my group to run through.
I'd say paizo has way more to lose then they have to gain if they go to a new edition of the rules.
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.
Being blunt most of Paizo customers are probably former 3.5 players rejecting 4E and that was 5-6 years ago.
Now you have had 14 years of 3.x, 11 years of 3.5 type rules. I burned out on Pathfinder back in 2012 and went back to AD&D. Just stated p[laying PF last night. I'll play it bit not run it.
WoTC has learned from 4E. I'm not a massive fan of D&DN but they have done some things right and it has several things going for it.
1. The D&D name.
2. The art work. Its covers look better than 3.0,3.5, 4E and Pathfinder.
3. Adventures. They had Wolfgang Bauer and Kobold Press do the 1st 2 adventures which are basically APs.
4. The basic rules are going to be free in PDF.
Gamers are also notoriously fickle. If they switched to Pathfinder Paizo does have the risk they will switch back to D&D assuming they make one that doesn't suck and has decent adventures. D&DN has a bit to much 4E in it for my tastes AFAIK but it is not a blatantly terrible version of D&D and it looks great and blows WAR art out of the water- ie it is not cartoony.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He has also stated he doesn't like the term "psionics." And to be honest, I think a lot of people think of 3.5 psionics when they ask for a psionics book (I know all of the ones I have seen have been).I think it's more a desire not to confuse people by calling an entirely different thing Psionics than it is a real dislike (ie: I don't think Paizo disliked Epic as a term, but they used Mythic instead because it's a whole different thing...I think psionics is like that)..
This is correct. We don't call Mythic "Epic" because it's different than D&D's epic rules... but it does address the same topic. It's a different solution to the same question. If we'd called "Mythic" "Epic" that would have just confused folks and implied that "epic" has no place in your game. If you prefer epic rules to mythic rules, or if you like both and want to use both, those HAVE to be options. By calling our take on post 20th-level play something different, we set it up so that's the case.
I really don't think they have the resources and time to run a giant 5 year beta.
Instead, I agree with Atarlost. I think they have been continuously tinkering with the system and presentation of the rules. If you want to see a Pathfinder 2.0 (whatever that may mean), just look at how the new classes are set up or possibly how the the Strategy guide looks when it releases.
I would be keen for a PF 2.0 (or a fixed 3.5).
I would want it to look like 3rd ed and have the old AD&D classic spells in it (fireball, magic missile etc) but I would want the math redone, feats redone up to and including the removal of natural spell feat and the broken spells just removed or nerfed. Scaling buff spells for example probably need to go or have a fixed bonus and the way they stack could be looked at.
Pathfinder inherited those from 3.5. I wanted them fixed in 4E but not fixed via a nuclear bomb. Divine favor for example could give a static +2 bonus, bless being an AoE spell +1.
Spell DCs could be capped along with ability scores. All classes could get a +3 bonus to saving throws at level 1 and do not have them stack if people multiclass.
That would not be compatible as such with current PF product but it would still look like 3.5 and tone some of the craziness down but without going into new game territory like 4E and D&DN to a lesser extent.
|
Creative Director
|
Isn't the term 'post 20th-level play' a bit inaccurate for Mythic? Mythic is more of level-extrinsic play? Something entirely outside of the level system but which can be applied at any point along its axis?
It's not at all inaccurate. It's just that Mythic play encompases far more than just "post 20th level play."
The AP sales may not be faltering, but people are getting more dissatisfied with the game rules and that's eventually going to become an opening for another system to take away the customers who aren't satisfied with the lack of revision.
How certain are you that fewer people are satisfied now then say, 3 years ago? Do we really have any numbers on this? In fact paizo's general audience has grown rather considerably over the last few years. Its possible the growing number of 'disatisfied' people...
This is an issue in pretty much any game. To be honest, there's a point where you have to just say "well, that isn't the type of game we're interested in making, there's plenty of other options available out there." It's impossible to make everyone happy - the important thing is to decide who your customers are going to be, and focus on making *them* happy.
The Pathfinder rules pretty much exist to sell APs. If the APs are selling, that's really all that matters for Paizo's bottom line - why would they be interested in all the extra work developing a new system and risk upsetting the status quo just to sell a few extra rulebooks?
The day I expect to see a new version of Pathfinder announced is the day Paizo see their sales graphs dipping. Otherwise it seems like a very poor business decision.
|
I think it's past time for new edition planning to start. They'll make a mess if the wind up having to rush one and PF is showing cracks where they changed things from 3.5 in addition to some of 3.5's perennial issues. I'd rather they take 5 years simmering PF2 on the back burner at 20% and trickling out prototypes the way B9S was allegedly a prototype for 4th edition than put all their effort into getting it out in a year.
Paizo doesnt do anything 20%. If they were going to do a new edition it would be a massive playtest of the scale that the beta rules went under. They have a commitment to transparency and openess to their rules as well as public discourse. That cant be done at 20%. Not to mention their flagship products are still not rpg books. They are adventures. And those arent showing any signs at all of 'cracking' and dnd 'next' wont have any impact on them. In fact if dnd next does what it says it will, it might even INCREASE adventure sales as people buy aps and convert them to next.
To that end I'd like to see something similar to Expanded Arcana that can try to fix some of the underlying issues with things like stealth, feinting, and combat maneuvers with "optional" rules, and I'd like to see them used in society play so they actually get tested thoroughly.
A book of optional rules is entirely possible. We've gotten a chunk of it at various different places. But a big book of it might be cool
Re-combining it would be a mistake. The whole problem with the rogue (and the monk) is that it tries to do too much. The ninja, slayer, and investigator all break pieces of hte rogue out and focus on those, doing them well....
I think the ACG may be a good start, actually. Or not. Depends what the investigator and slayer wind up looking like. I'd like to see true replacements for all the problem classes that can be re-merged into the classics when second edition comes around so replacing the rogue is a start.
I actually think many people would disagree with this point of view. Most of the complaints I see about character builds is that they can't do everything not that they are too broad and general. More specialized classes just seems like being railroaded down a particular path to me.
the removal of natural spell featYeah, that's basically a non-choice for druid builds. Either casting while wildshaped should be impossible, or some method of casting while wildshaped should be built into the class.
I lean towards not being able to cast while wild shaped. I rewrote the Druid class and based it a bit more off the AD&D Druid and cut level 8 and 9 spells, natural spell and its animal companion. In exchange it got not much apart from boosted saving throws..
I would like to see a new setting.
Golarion is great, I love it, but I also love other things. At the top of my list would be a low magic setting, with alternate rules to support that kind of game play. I also wouldn't mind seeing a hyper fantastic setting akin Wonderland.
To a degree this can be achieved with the current setting, but it requires a lot of work to guide Player expectations and assumptions. I would rather pay Paizo staff to do that work.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The AP sales may not be faltering, but people are getting more dissatisfied with the game rules and that's eventually going to become an opening for another system to take away the customers who aren't satisfied with the lack of revision.
According to what, o revered Internet oracle? Paizo staff have cited in multiple interviews that core rule book sales have increased every year for multiple years (I think year 2 was the only one to come in lower and that was following the launch year).
The complaints of min-maxers, disenchanted 4e fans, or forum-only-RPG-business experts notwithstanding, plenty of people are happy with the game. If you go through the various "X is underpowered", "time for PF2e", and the "better change or D&D will leave you behind" threads, you're going to see a lot of the same names. Being vocal doesn't mean you're correct or have numbers on your side.
I remember similar claims were made when Paizo opted to develop the PFRPG rather than get on the GSL bandwagon. Those dire predictions, threats, and "expert business recommendations" were spectacularly wrong.
I'm all for making improvements in the game but claiming that "people are becoming more dissatisfied with the game rules" with nothing to back it up other than your desire to see development embrace what you want is a bit disingenuous.
I'm sure D&D5e will make a big splash initially. Time will tell if it has staying power greater than 4e did. Reflexively doing a major product shift on what might happen seems like a pretty bad way to run a business.
I'll trust Paizo to make that decision over the prophecies of forum-posters every time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see a new setting.
Golarion is great, I love it, but I also love other things. At the top of my list would be a low magic setting, with alternate rules to support that kind of game play. I also wouldn't mind seeing a hyper fantastic setting akin Wonderland.
To a degree this can be achieved with the current setting, but it requires a lot of work to guide Player expectations and assumptions. I would rather pay Paizo staff to do that work.
I'd think that this is something best left to a 3rd party partner as Lisa Stevens has on several occasions stated that multiple settings are what helped sink TSR back in the day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
New set of rules? I would say no.
Update unclear rules? Definitely yes.
You dont need a whole new revised system to fix some broken rules (monks, rogues, manuevers), all that can be fixed on a revision of PF CRB (on a 8th or 9th print).
Natural spell could be fixed by adopting a X hours/day use instead of X/day uses. That way a druid can get in and out of shapeshift to cast spells without sacrificing his only daily use.
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...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Shadowkras. There really isn't much that requires fixing. They took a good system and made it better.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I also agree with Shadowkras. Can Pathfinder use improvement? of course any system can.
Here is my favorite part of the Core rule book.
"The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
Page 9 Core Rule book
I think people often forget about this little bit of text, which gives us the players GMs and players alike a great deal of freedom to play the kind of game we would like to play and adjust what we want to adjust.
If someone has a problem with say Wild Shape they can and are expected to address this problem in their home game. If you don't like a class, you don't have to use it.
In my home games for example, when a player asks about either guns or gunslingers, which I don't like, I inform the player that in my home version of Golarion, there was a terrible accident...Alkenstar blew themselves up, with their gun powder....so there are not any guns.
So In short, I'm happy with the incremental changes, and I'm not looking for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. It will come eventually.....but in my opinion, I hope that is years away.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I would like a new setting..."
My contention is that PF has part of it's success because it concentrated on a singlar setting instead of having several to support. The past has had some hard lessons, and T$R/Wizards did not learn from it as they flonndered in their last waning days of an edition (2nd and 4th). T$R had a lot of settings, some where extensions of a main setting (like Ravenloft and Planescape) while others were stand alone. It ended up being to much for them to support.
Wizards did a "setting of the year" concept, releasing a set number of books and support and then moved on. This irked some just as much as the long list of "unsupported" settings from before.
PF has been focused on one setting. I think this should continue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I would like a new setting..."
My contention is that PF has part of it's success because it concentrated on a singlar setting instead of having several to support. The past has had some hard lessons, and T$R/Wizards did not learn from it as they flonndered in their last waning days of an edition (2nd and 4th). T$R had a lot of settings, some where extensions of a main setting (like Ravenloft and Planescape) while others were stand alone. It ended up being to much for them to support.
Wizards did a "setting of the year" concept, releasing a set number of books and support and then moved on. This irked some just as much as the long list of "unsupported" settings from before.
PF has been focused on one setting. I think this should continue.
I concur
Their is still a huge chunk of stuff to do in the current campaign setting, and most of the major nations (including such important places such as Cheliax, Taldor, and Andoran) lack any sort of Campaign Setting book. That doesn't even count the other regions of the world (Southern Garund, Casmaron, Arcadia, etc), planets, or Revisited/book of the Damned volumes. I don't really see any need to switch settings yet, and there are still plenty of plot hooks left in the setting for AP's
So I would say, in perhaps contrast to the Player Companions or hardcover rule book line, there is still plenty of design space left.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the core Pathfinder setting, there is pretty much a setting for anything you can imagine. And there will likely be material to support it released at some point. That is a major factor behind why the setting works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Shadowkras. There really isn't much that requires fixing. They took a good system and made it better.
I agree for the most part. The system needs an incremental update to address some of the issues showing in the system after 5 years of play testing. Unfortunately, the powers that be in Paizo are opposed to incremental design.
I would really like to see a "pathfinder revised" that tackles the CRB and (1) reorganizes it, (2) clean up language without worrying about pagination, and (3) implements "optional" changes to the areas which are known to be problematic.
The idea would be that this new book is 100% compatible with the current game. It doesn't replace/supersede the CRB, but just makes the changes that the game needs for long term staying power. Then make the 7th printing of the CRB the last one. When the CRB goes out of print, PFS changes over to the revised ruleset and everyone moves along happily. That process would take years to play out so people could be gently moved along into the revision and could still make use of their full library of books.
Possibly some supplements would need small errata to function under revised rules which would start appearing in reprints after the CRB goes out of print.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I think that there is no need for PF2. Perhaps at some point some classes should be consolidated, some archetype abilities should become a part of base/core classes and IMHO standard Fighter should be a bit improved. Also, some feat trees should be perhaps slimmed down by introducing scaling feats.
Either than that, no need for new edition.
I would like a new edition of PF just in 2-3 years or so. Not quite there yet. That is 8 years or so?
The reason I have not bought a massive amount of PF stuff though is because I have 80+ 3rd ed books. Basically.
1. I do not want to go down the bloat trail again.
2. Its not different enough to 3rd ed to throw lots of money at it.
I have around 400 D&D items around 20 per year.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think many people would disagree with this point of view. Most of the complaints I see about character builds is that they can't do everything not that they are too broad and general. More specialized classes just seems like being railroaded down a particular path to me.
How are they railroading you down a particular path? You choose the path. The classes that are the most often complained about are the ones that are the most broad conceptually or mechanically. The fighter because the class is intentionally generic, limiting the design space for cool character options, because basically its just feats. Feats are available to everyone, and thus its very difficult to create 'wow' options from feats. Its possible but it generally involves alot more investment then say rage, or smite evil.
Next are the monk and rogue. Both these classes try to do too much mechancially. The monk doesnt know whether it wants to jump around or stand still, be a combatant, or a mystic wise man. Thus his abilities are scattered all over the place, and doesnt allow him to be particularly good at anything. Most of the paladins abilities let him take down big bad evil guys. Most of the barbarians powers let him be a big beefy murder machine. The abilities work together. The monks dont.
The rogue has a similar problem. 10 of his class abilities plus a whole mess of his talnets are combat oriented. Yet a ton of the rest of his stuff are skill oriented. He wants to be the sneaky, face, trapfinding, skill monkey, murder guy, and ends failing to deliver on at least some of that in every case.
By divinding the rogue up into multiple classes each with specific class abilities focued on delivering on a specific concept, you give a better design space for developers to work with. A swashbuckler class is always going to be a better foundation then an archetype on a class that isnt particularly inclined towards swashbuckling because you dont have to deal with a limited foundation of 3/4bab light, d8 hit dice and limited combat options. You can start from scratch and just make it work.
Short of just using the rogue genius games talented line by Owen Stephens and making every class completely modular, Seperate classes is in fact the best choice for a number of reasons. First its easier to build a character that is good at the thing it says on the box. Its easier for gms to build npcs, or use prestated npcs if the options are divided among different classes and 3rd, you dont have to worry about imbalance from interactions. Maybe a swashbuckler who can get a particular alchemist extract is actually overpowered (hypothetical). If the investigator, swashbuckler, and slayer are all rolled back into the rogue, you have to account for this, forcing your to restrict power of different options. If they are separate classes, you dont have to worry about this as much as in general multiclassing hurts in pathfinder enough to even out such combinations.