i like Paizo, if in however long they decide they need a new edition i'll buy it:)
So really the groaning going on here is werebat under the weight of his powergamers.
That would be true if I were the only person in my situation.
But I'm not, and as time goes on it will get worse for everyone.
Paizo, for example, can't assume when it writes its APs that everyone out there has every supplement it has also put out. That would lead to people eventually dropping their AP subscriptions because they couldn't use all of the APs due to their containing supplemental material they don't own (I know there have been exceptions to this but it is generally true).
Eventually you have a situation where player groups will have many more options (and thus generally more power) than the adversaries in the APs can have, due to said adversaries being largely restricted to core rules.
The more times rolls on, the worse the situation gets.
It is ultimately untenable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So really the groaning going on here is werebat under the weight of his powergamers.That would be true if I were the only person in my situation.
But I'm not, and as time goes on it will get worse for everyone.
for "everyone". Interesting extrapolation there that "everyone" will feel the exact way you do and want to throw all the PF books they've bought the last 10 years out the window.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So really the groaning going on here is werebat under the weight of his powergamers.That would be true if I were the only person in my situation.
But I'm not, and as time goes on it will get worse for everyone.
Paizo, for example, can't assume when it writes its APs that everyone out there has every supplement it has also put out. That would lead to people eventually dropping their AP subscriptions because they couldn't use all of the APs due to their containing supplemental material they don't own (I know there have been exceptions to this but it is generally true).
Eventually you have a situation where player groups will have many more options (and thus generally more power) than the adversaries in the APs can have, due to said adversaries being largely restricted to core rules.
The more times rolls on, the worse the situation gets.
It is ultimately untenable.
The entire rules content of support material used in APs is open content, and freely available on the Internet. So it got tenable right away, next argument?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, optimized core only PCs already easily out power-level as written APs. Have since AP 1 onward, because you know-- APs are written for middle of the road level of optimization, not for power gamers, so that argument if pretty faulty as well.
Obvious exception exist, like Bonekeep, but if you think the average group was really on the same power level as the average AP at any point in the game you are sorely mistaken.
Also, if Paizo feels that any given option they are using is from too obscure a source they can simply, you know, print it in a sidebar in that AP.
That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the countless options ... there's always some other cool thing to discover.
I do think that historically, systems came out, were simple, then over years they bloated and became unmanageable (and too expensive to get into). But with current technology and the licensing Pathfinder is under, neither of those are an issue.
You can play the game without spending ANY money, other than internet access, so the cost issue is mitigated. I mainly buy the PDFs so that is cheaper as well. 5E would be dead at the gate without offering PDFs for me. WOTC seems to have learned here ...
As far as being unmanageable, with online content easily searchable, using something like Hero Lab (back to cost issue, but it is SO worth it), as well as these online forums, the glut of content is totally manageable. And again, I like the options.
Powergamers? In a home game, easy to mitigate. Lower point buy, stat array that's the same for everyone, core only, random aspects, etc, etc, etc. In PFS it's more of an issue, but I have enjoyed and contributed to many a PFS game, even at the higher levels playing a pre-gen, at a table where other players were min/maxed. Personally, while it's easy to find ways to put out the most damage per round, I find that rather dull. I like having lots of options every round as to what I can do ... that's what I dig through the rules for.
I do see a Core Book 2.0 coming out, but mainly including all the corrections, tweaks, and written with knowledge of everything that has been written since. Maybe starting at that point with a new look/art style. A few years from now all the art will seem dated.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My hope is that 5E is SO freaking awesome that I am willing to spend tons of money and switch ... and that Paizo responds with a system that is SO freaking awesome that I switch back ...
... Pathfinder is already so freaking awesome that the resulting system would be mind blowing!
|
So really the groaning going on here is werebat under the weight of his powergamers.That would be true if I were the only person in my situation.
But I'm not, and as time goes on it will get worse for everyone.
Paizo, for example, can't assume when it writes its APs that everyone out there has every supplement it has also put out. That would lead to people eventually dropping their AP subscriptions because they couldn't use all of the APs due to their containing supplemental material they don't own (I know there have been exceptions to this but it is generally true).
Eventually you have a situation where player groups will have many more options (and thus generally more power) than the adversaries in the APs can have, due to said adversaries being largely restricted to core rules.
The more times rolls on, the worse the situation gets.
It is ultimately untenable.
Gorby beat me to it but thanks to open source and the SRD, PF is the definition of tenable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was great when it came out. A real relief from the madness that 3.X had descended into. I loved how game play seemed more balanced, and many of the optimization "tricks" were toned down in the core rules and even the first supplement or two.
And then came the APG. And with it, the gunslinger, the alchemist, and the summoner.
In the time since, Pathfinder has begun to groan under the weight of its own cheese. With the new class book coming out, I'm starting to feel just like I did with 3.X when Pathfinder first came out.
And now I see 5th Edition D&D, just about ready to bite into. Simplified. Less optimization-y. A lot like Pathfinder was, once.
Hear that creaking and groaning? Right around the structural supports?
The amount of splat feats is is not on par with a new book almost every month, and the game is no less balanced than it was before. If a player wants to give the GM a headache he only needs to CRB. If he is not the type to really ramp up on optimization then he won't even with more books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not more balanced?
Look at the average Will saves of a level 20 Pathfinder Cleric and a level 20 Pathfinder Rogue.
Now look at the Wisdom saves of a level 20 5th Edition Cleric and a level 20 5th Edition Rogue.
What was that about balance again?
The word balance does not mean "equal".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So really the groaning going on here is werebat under the weight of his powergamers.That would be true if I were the only person in my situation.
But I'm not, and as time goes on it will get worse for everyone.
Paizo, for example, can't assume when it writes its APs that everyone out there has every supplement it has also put out. That would lead to people eventually dropping their AP subscriptions because they couldn't use all of the APs due to their containing supplemental material they don't own (I know there have been exceptions to this but it is generally true).
Eventually you have a situation where player groups will have many more options (and thus generally more power) than the adversaries in the APs can have, due to said adversaries being largely restricted to core rules.
The more times rolls on, the worse the situation gets.
It is ultimately untenable.
Most people have internet access which is all they need, and since 3.5 until it was done away with that is not evidence in your favor, and there the power creep there was well beyond what I can do in Pathfinder.
In addition if you don't want to use a witch as an example because you dont want to learn new class then use a pregenerated wizard which are available on the prd.
The same logic applies to any new class.--> Grab something similar.
Interesting extrapolation there that "everyone" will feel the exact way you do and want to throw all the PF books they've bought the last 10 years out the window.
Interesting extrapolation there that I want to throw all the PF books I've bought the last 10 years out the window (do you also think I traveled to the year 2008 from 2004 to buy Paizo product?)
As they say in management, "I can see that you feel very passionately about this."
The entire rules content of support material used in APs is open content, and freely available on the Internet. So it got tenable right away, next argument?
If you are correct, then there should be APs that use material from more than core and 2-3 sourcebooks that happened to come out a titch before the given AP did. Maybe 3-4 if you count monster books.
Can you name any APs where this is the case?
That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.
Ah, thanks for the info proving my point. 4-5 is exactly what I had guessed (counting core and monster books). What happens when they have ten sourcebooks available for players and the APs are still limited to 4-5? Twenty?
Eventually it gets untenable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goalposts away!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
untenable
untenable
untenable
untenable
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
untenableuntenableuntenableuntenableYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I can see that you feel very passionately about this.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.Ah, thanks for the info proving my point. 4-5 is exactly what I had guessed (counting core and monster books). What happens when they have ten sourcebooks available for players and the APs are still limited to 4-5? Twenty?
Eventually it gets untenable.
I can see that you feel very passionately about this.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entire rules content of support material used in APs is open content, and freely available on the Internet. So it got tenable right away, next argument?If you are correct, then there should be APs that use material from more than core and 2-3 sourcebooks that happened to come out a titch before the given AP did. Maybe 3-4 if you count monster books.
Can you name any APs where this is the case?
So, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial point was "you need to *own* all these books!" and when that got shot down we're in the "there are so many books, I'll never be able to process them all!" zone.
Which is an age-old argument in every RPG system that has more than 1 rule book printed for it. WoD, WFRP, GURPS, Rifts, Exalted, Shadowrun, Star Wars... Except in this case you don't need to shell out the money to keep up, that is.
The funny thing about the 3.5 gaming crowd, which makes up the vast majority of Pathfinder player base, is that they, for the most part, embraced the vast sea of options. Pathfinder isn't the only RPG out there, it even isn't the only iteration of D&D out there, and I can pretty much bet that all those people who prefer lite gaming hardly ever touched 3.5, let alone Pathfinder, and are out there happily playing OSR retroclones or whatanot.
Also, most folks can see PF for what it is and what it's not. I highly doubt that Paizo's business goal was, at any point, to satisfy every RPG gamer out there, or even every D&D gamer. The primary demographic was, and likely will be, folks who enjoyed 3.5 and got dumped upon by WotC when they killed 3.5 and started 4e.
Important point: 3.5 didn't die because of rules bloat, it didn't die because people stopped buying it, and it didn't die because the system fell apart. When WotC pulled the plug, it was an extremely popular, widely played and enjoyed game despite all the dozens of splatbooks and a sea of 3PP material. 3.5 was axed only because the Corporate Overlords of Hasbro decided that a new stream of fresh money generated by a new edition is what they want at the next annual bottom line. The fact that a massive market wanted *more* of 3.5 was made pretty evident when Pathfinder hit it high with the promise of bringing "more of the same" to the table.
So maybe you're not the target market group. But that fact alone doesn't mean that the system is going to fall apart.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never really understood this problem. I know a few guys that only use the CRB, a few guys that are paizo hardcovers only, and quite a few that'll use anything 1st party on the SRD, with 3pc allowed after review. They all play and enjoy the game.
Think of a rules system is a buffet: When you start off the food options are quite limited.
As it grows they add new tables to the buffet with different dishes that you are free to sample, ignore, or feast on. To use a personal example, I enjoy Downtime, but I'm not a huge fan of Words of Power. So I use the former, but not the latter.
Adding more options is generally a good thing - if you find the range of content problematic or overwhelming then just limit the content allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.Ah, thanks for the info proving my point. 4-5 is exactly what I had guessed (counting core and monster books). What happens when they have ten sourcebooks available for players and the APs are still limited to 4-5? Twenty?
Eventually it gets untenable.
It still stays at 4 to 5. The idea is not to represent every new book every time. The idea is to use the products in games. It is good advertising, and it allows the writers more ways to express ideas. By the time it is up to 20 the older books will have likely been establish and won't need the press.
That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.Ah, thanks for the info proving my point. 4-5 is exactly what I had guessed (counting core and monster books). What happens when they have ten sourcebooks available for players and the APs are still limited to 4-5? Twenty?
Eventually it gets untenable.
Not sure what Nathanael Love means by 4-5. I have all of Wrath of the Righteous as well as Reign of Winter. They do make use of all hardcover rule books to varying extents, usually in the form of classes (alchemists, witches, etc) and monsters. And recently a lot of NPC codex.
All of that material is hardcover, and all of it is on the PFSRD for free (or available as a cheap pdf)
Outside of that, the AP's rarely use any material from softcovers, and when they do they usually reprint the relevant statblocks/rules. Usually the only soft cover books GM's are expected to have for an AP is normally only the CS book for the region (Worldwound, etc) and the relevant player companion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial point was "you need to *own* all these books!"
Um. Where did I say that? I don't remember saying it, and when I looked, I couldn't find it.
Gorbacz, have you actually taken the time to read the 5e stuff that's out there (available for free in the Basic book)?
I was surprised at how very similar to 3.X/PF it was.
All I've really been saying is that we've hit a point where at least some of the people who left 3.5 for Pathfinder (because sticking with 3.5 was always an option, even after WotC abandoned it) are becoming disillusioned with PF and looking to 5e D&D the same way they looked to PF when it first arrived on the scene.
Not everyone. Clearly many people here emphatically do NOT feel this way.
But some people besides myself have basically agreed with me here. They have expressed similar opinions to my own -- they left 3.5 for PF in part because they tired of rules bloat and the slew of OP combos that had become part of 3rd Edition.
And they're starting to feel the same way about PF.
You can howl all you want about it, you can make all the accusations of goalpost moving that you want, you can dismiss our feelings as invalid all you want -- but it's still going to be how we feel.
And that means something.
Some people are going to leave PF. Some people are going to leave PF for 5e. Some people are going to leave PF for 5e at least in part because they have grown weary of things like TWF gunslingers, synthesist summoners, magic item shops, and a slew of new options that seem to do more bogging down of the game for them than enhancement (and I *like* the gunslinger, at least in concept, as well as the alchemist and a lot of the other newer stuff). And yes, some of us will leave because of long-standing issues with things like CoDzilla and caster power levels that PF never really fixed to our satisfaction.
All of this means something.
I'm not saying that Paizo is going to go belly up -- I realize I've already pointed this out several times -- but I am saying that PF is approaching a stage of its life that looks very familiar to me, having played through several editions of D&D.
I could be dead wrong! But I don't think that I am. And I do think that I'm going to give 5e a shot, because I think that the way I feel about PF -- regardless of the way anyone else does -- is valid, at least for me.
I'm not telling you all to stop playing PF. I don't even want you to. I think this competition between Paizo and WotC is good for all of us. And I'll freely admit that Paizo seems to have the upper hand when it comes to business strategy -- although WotC seems to have taken some pages from their book (not nearly enough, if you ask me, but still). Like another person who commented here, my ideal would be 5e spurring Paizo to develop something new that incorporated everything good about 5e and improved on it. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened someday -- the Paizo people are smart.
But something has happened to PF, and for me, I feel it is time to get off this train and board another. I'm not alone.
And that means something.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that means something. Something untenable.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not telling you all to stop playing PF. I don't even want you to. I think this competition between Paizo and WotC is good for all of us. And I'll freely admit that Paizo seems to have the upper hand when it comes to business strategy -- although WotC seems to have taken some pages from their book (not nearly enough, if you ask me, but still). Like another person who commented here, my ideal would be 5e spurring Paizo to develop something new that incorporated everything good about 5e and improved on it. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened someday -- the Paizo people are smart.
But something has happened to PF, and for me, I feel it is time to get off this train and board another. I'm not alone.
And that means something.
So what are you telling us? That you, and perhaps others, are ready to go on to another game? This isn't news, this is the subject of a post or two every other week for the past however long these boards have been up here, and on boards elsewhere. For this game. For every game.
I appreciate the heads up on your status with the game, I really do. But this doesn't mean anything more than you (and perhaps some others) want to play something else for a while. It is as meaningful as if you tell me that you are done with True Blood or don't want to follow X sports team anymore. I nod and say OK, but your exit from this game only means that you exited this game. It isn't a statement on the overall state of gaming or if this or another game are going down a certain route.
I wish you the best in whatever game you find yourself playing. Have fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never really understood this problem. I know a few guys that only use the CRB, a few guys that are paizo hardcovers only, and quite a few that'll use anything 1st party on the SRD, with 3pc allowed after review. They all play and enjoy the game.
Think of a rules system is a buffet: When you start off the food options are quite limited.
As it grows they add new tables to the buffet with different dishes that you are free to sample, ignore, or feast on. To use a personal example, I enjoy Downtime, but I'm not a huge fan of Words of Power. So I use the former, but not the latter.
Adding more options is generally a good thing - if you find the range of content problematic or overwhelming then just limit the content allowed.
Pretty much this. My game rules are "Anything - first or third party - on PFSRD is fair game. (Mythic only if I'm actually running a mythic game, obviously.) Further 3rd-party stuff if you can get me a copy and I approve it. 3.5 stuff allowed in most games if I have a copy of it (which I have a pretty extensive 3.5 library), if it needs upgrading/converting to fit into PF's system we'll talk. Anything the players use is fair game for the GM." I love having lots of options and am always eager for more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So really the groaning going on here is werebat under the weight of his powergamers.
it could be the reality sinking in that his avatar is in fact not a Werebat, but an annoying little fey creature:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now I see 5th Edition D&D, just about ready to bite into. Simplified. Less optimization-y. A lot like Pathfinder was, once.
And a year from now...?
Fully bloated and dripping with cheese.
There's really no point to this, unless it is a roundabout means of flexing your inner Wizards fanboy. Or unless you are getting kickbacks for starting threads that act as thinly veiled commercials for the other team.
Basically, every major system will eventually have to continue releasing splat or setting in order to maintain sales over the course of an edition.
If, given Wizards' track record of bloat and - worse - of holding back essential basics just so they can cram them into PH 2 or PH 3 or DMG 4, or whatever, you can still come away thinking that jumping ship to D&D 5 is anything but a temporary bandaid on an ultimately doomed situation, well... I think there's really nothing to say to a person who doesn't already understand this. Or just refuses to acknowledge it.
Given the inevitability of your cycle of unhappiness, it might make more sense to come to peace with the idea that you don't have to include every bit of splat that comes out, into your games. Personal choice to simply avoid being miserable about things over which you have no control, but DO HAVE THE OPTION OF EXCLUDING, is probably the more mature and thoughtful alternative to starting another Edition War thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, just a brief bit about APs and supplemental materials.
I never purchased the Varisian book (outside of Magnimar) and honestly didn't even need the Magnimar book. Yet my Runelords game is going well.
I never bought the Irrisen book despite running Reign of Winter.
I never bought the Orison books despite having bought that AP and the fact I'll likely run it.
I doubt I'll buy the Numeria books despite the fact I will be getting the Iron Gods AP and have a player who likely will love to play that if we ever finish with Runelords.
Why do you think we need these supplemental books or else we won't run the APs or buy them?
Heck, you can even take the AP and PUT IT IN YOUR OWN GAMING WORLD if you want to. In many cases it does not require massive rewriting - heck, RoW could have started out in another campaign world, had the Winter Portal lead to Irrisen/Golarion, and continue from there. Or could be any region in your own game world.
We buy the APs for convenience sake.
As for 5th edition? I'm probably not going to buy it. My group is happy with Pathfinder. One player might buy the 5th ed. books and I'll likely read through them, but I'm not likely to run it. I've never run any of a half dozen game systems I own, including Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy, the original World of Darkness (iffy as I was a Judge on a WoD MUSH, but never did any tabletop gaming for those), never played Timelords (an old game system that didn't have anything to do with Doctor Who), and sadly never got to play the 3.5 variant Slayers (based on the anime).
With the number of unplayed game systems I have and the fact I've plenty of material for Pathfinder that could, if I stopped buying at this point in time, give me over a decade's worth of gaming material (seeing my games run monthly)... why waste my money for yet another system I probably won't use? Especially given how WotC screwed up so badly with D&D 4E? Why risk yet another failed system that I'd have to invest a lot of money in?
Even your claims that Pathfinder is "groaning under its newer material" is immaterial as I can easily use the Core Rulebook and be able to use most of the APs as-written. Anything outside of Core (ie, classes and spells) that I'm unfamiliar with? I can find online.
So really. Your argument is baseless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um. Where did I say that? I don't remember saying it, and when I looked, I couldn't find it.
So, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial point was "you need to *own* all these books!"
You may not have used the word "own", but you made it seem like a lack of access was a problem, and yeah I can find the quote for that.
All I've really been saying is that we've hit a point where at least some of the people who left 3.5 for Pathfinder (because sticking with 3.5 was always an option, even after WotC abandoned it) are becoming disillusioned with PF and looking to 5e D&D the same way they looked to PF when it first arrived on the scene.
Not everyone. Clearly many people here emphatically do NOT feel this way.
That is very different from the feel of your first post. There will always be "someone". Someone may go to 5E, not like it as much, and come back to PF. Some will stay with 5E. Your first post has a much stronger feel than "some will leave". There will always be someone that will leave, even if 5E had not come around.
You can howl all you want about it, you can make all the accusations of goalpost moving that you want, you can dismiss our feelings as invalid all you want -- but it's still going to be how we feel.And that means something.
Nobody is dismissing your feelings, but you made certain statements as if they were facts, when they are not.
So IF ALL you are saying is that the rules bloat is too much for some, then we agree. You may have even listed some valid reasons as to why they will leave, but if you don't your post to be read as "the sky is falling", then don't write them in that manner.
There's really no point to this, unless it is a roundabout means of flexing your inner Wizards fanboy. Or unless you are getting kickbacks for starting threads that act as thinly veiled commercials for the other team.
You summarize well the responses of many people in this thread by people who seem to consider themselves to be in the dugout of the "home team".
Accusing me of being a "fanboy", and of getting "kickbacks"? That's nothing more than angry vitriol, but it is the sort of vitriol one would expect from a person who sees another as a member of the "opposing team" invading the "dugout".
Actually, thanks. You've helped me to understand the reason for all of the vitriol. I had been confused because I made essentially the same initial post over at ENworld and that conversation has been completely devoid of the kind of snide rage hate I'm seeing here.
It didn't make a lot of sense before but now I get it. This is the "dugout", and I'm considering changing colors to the "other team".
I guess I was confused because I didn't really expect that kind of mentality from fellow gamers. Go figure.
I'll leave you to your cheers and pom-poms. Have fun at Homecoming!
Why do you think we need these supplemental books or else we won't run the APs or buy them?
Where did I say that? You have completely missed my point and are not making any sense.
Not that it is stopping some from backslapping and high-fiving you in the "favorites" section. Go team Go!
Um. Where did I say that? I don't remember saying it, and when I looked, I couldn't find it.
So, you've moved the goalposts. Your initial point was "you need to *own* all these books!"You may not have used the word "own", but you made it seem like a lack of access was a problem, and yeah I can find the quote for that.
All I've really been saying is that we've hit a point where at least some of the people who left 3.5 for Pathfinder (because sticking with 3.5 was always an option, even after WotC abandoned it) are becoming disillusioned with PF and looking to 5e D&D the same way they looked to PF when it first arrived on the scene.
Not everyone. Clearly many people here emphatically do NOT feel this way.
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. There is nothing in there about owning anything.
Nobody is dismissing your feelings, but you made certain statements as if they were facts, when they are not.
Such as? Game systems having a start-bloat-sprawl-reboot cycle? Do I really need to provide examples of that?
So IF ALL you are saying is that the rules bloat is too much for some, then we agree. You may have even listed some valid reasons as to why they will leave, but if you don't your post to be read as "the sky is falling", then don't write them in that manner.
Rules bloat being too much for some is not ALL I have been saying. What I have been saying has been pretty clear, but I think the message has been getting clouded by the chest thumping and emotion that comes with team loyalty.
It's cool. I'm not attacking Pathfinder. I'm just pointing out that it isn't young anymore. This edition isn't going to die tomorrow -- but it's closer to death now than it was. Some people starting to bail on it expressly due to rules bloat and sprawl is a sign of that.
When you hit fifty, your eyes start to go, and your joints start to ache in the morning, and you notice yourself getting tired earlier in the day, it doesn't mean that you're going to die tomorrow, but it does mean something. Insisting that you're still "fit as a fiddle" doesn't change your stage of life.
Note, again, I never claimed that PAIZO was about to go under, or even that PATHFINDER was. But a scrapping and rules rewrite (ie new edition) can't be too far off at this point. Maybe sometime in the next five years.
That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.Ah, thanks for the info proving my point. 4-5 is exactly what I had guessed (counting core and monster books). What happens when they have ten sourcebooks available for players and the APs are still limited to 4-5? Twenty?
Eventually it gets untenable.
Not sure what Nathanael Love means by 4-5. I have all of Wrath of the Righteous as well as Reign of Winter. They do make use of all hardcover rule books to varying extents, usually in the form of classes (alchemists, witches, etc) and monsters. And recently a lot of NPC codex.
All of that material is hardcover, and all of it is on the PFSRD for free (or available as a cheap pdf)
Outside of that, the AP's rarely use any material from softcovers, and when they do they usually reprint the relevant statblocks/rules. Usually the only soft cover books GM's are expected to have for an AP is normally only the CS book for the region (Worldwound, etc) and the relevant player companion
4-5 is what Paizo staff stated in one of the paizo con panels that I listened to on podcast last week. I think they mentioned WotR as being slightly heavier/higher, but they stated 4-5 hardcovers required/suggested for material not printed int he AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(snip)
Not that it is stopping some from backslapping and high-fiving you in the "favorites" section. Go team Go!
I'm sorry. Do you honestly believe I posted that because I care about what other people think about me? I'm too old to give a flying leap about Internet approval. And your attempts to find approval here with your "Paizo is doomed" thread using the loosest of arguments is fairly transparent. Try not to use a flawed argument next time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep talking about 'rules bloat', but what about that is so off-putting to you? Why specifically is it more advantageous in your opinion to have less options? And as far as OP combos are concerned, what is your definition of OP? Outside of the Summoner, all of the additional rules Paizo has released feel solidly balanced (at least to me). In fact, it has kind of been disappointing to me overall that Paizo hasn't released MORE unique base classes and useful prestige classes, but I understand it's in the interest of maintaining balance and staving off power creep. And the fact that Paizo devs prefer archetypes to prestige classes.
People aren't responding very well to your arguments, and you interperet this as 'chest thumping' and 'team loyalty' (which I don't really see much of). I think it should be interpreted as people just not accepting your arguments on their face, with no real justification outside of 'some people feel the same way I do'. Maybe you should try explaining what it is about these things that is causing you to jump ship.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, thanks. You've helped me to understand the reason for all of the vitriol. I had been confused because I made essentially the same initial post over at ENworld and that conversation has been completely devoid of the kind of snide rage hate I'm seeing here.
From my perspective, some of this "vitriol" you're experiencing here as opposed to the ENWorld thread may have something to do with the general tone of your original post (and the title of this thread), both of which were a lot more dismissive of Pathfinder and certainly didn't seem to be inviting discussion as opposed to your post on ENWorld, which was.
It shouldn't come as a huge surprise, considering that- generally speaking- the population of the Paizo forums is going to have a congenial regard for the Pathfinder system. It's almost like being invited to someone's house and criticizing the decor.
Perhaps if you were more as to your intent in starting this thread, it would help to settle the rancor on both sides of the discussion?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These thread's are probably timely, since Unchained is the next big unknown rule book on the horizon and can actually take steps to address the "groan".
5E has some really nice changes, and I don't see any reason why some of them wouldn't pop up in Unchained as options to help diffuse the "groan".
I had a game just yesterday that involved several castings of dispel magic and us waiting while we ran through the spells that were up. In 5E, it simply just strips away all spells of 3rd level or lower. No dice rolling, no table delays. I actually wouldn't mind that option in PF Unchained (and already am thinking it's a great house rule).
I had another game recently which involved darkness, displacement, mirror image and blink active on one person. It made my brain hurt. In 5e that simply means "yeah, you have disadvantage against that guy". I actually started considering another house rule for Pathfinder that if there's enough effects going to simply call it disadvantage to keep the flow of the game going.
As someone with a significant investment in Paizo adventures and content (as in - all of them), I certainly want to see more longevity in the current system and not lose folks to the siren's call of the latest shiny new sports car cruising down the road... in the context of Unchained coming down the pipe, we can be constructive and look at ways it can make Pathfinder sexier.
Ok i understand the issues with summoner, i understand the issues with gunslinger (mainly that published adventures can't handle them) but what are your issues with the alchemist?
You keep talking about 'rules bloat', but what about that is so off-putting to you? Why specifically is it more advantageous in your opinion to have less options? And as far as OP combos are concerned, what is your definition of OP? Outside of the Summoner, all of the additional rules Paizo has released feel solidly balanced (at least to me). In fact, it has kind of been disappointing to me overall that Paizo hasn't released MORE unique base classes and useful prestige classes, but I understand it's in the interest of maintaining balance and staving off power creep. And the fact that Paizo devs prefer archetypes to prestige classes.Personally I think the bloat and power creep in PF isn't really in classes, but in feats and spells and even equipment. An example would be all the ways for a sorcerer to get more spells (favored class bonuses, pages of spell knowledge, Paragon Surge (even the nerfed version)).
And even these are not really all that bad. Some of the spells are a bit out there, though I personally haven't had any problems with them. I'm not sure what feats or equipment seem broken, but I admit my tolerance threshold for such things is much higher than some - for example, I never understood what the big fuss about 3.5's Shock Trooper feat was, but apparently it caused a lot of serious freakouts at some people's tables.
I kind of agree on the Sorcerer bit, though being as big a fan of spont casters as I am I really like the favored class bonus for extra spells (other than my usual gripe of "yay more nice things for humans, just what this game needs", neatly solved for my group by opening up favored class bonuses regardless of race); since I always houseruled to let pearls of power be used by spont casters anyway, the addition of the pages of spell knowledge didn't change my game at all.