You can't really build a solid point-based class builder, because of the way class features are interdependent and don't exist in a vacuum. Let's assume you take the "rage" class feature and price at 10 points. However, rage will have a completely different impact on a class depending on other class features and characteristics - it will have the most impact on a full-BAB class which assumes STR as the main combat stat, far less impact on a medium-BAB class where STR is a secondary attribute and will be worthless for a slow-BAB class.you can try but all you will get is a system where characters can stack highly synergistic class features to boost something like how much damage you can dish out with a specific 2handed weapon by combining rage, weapon training, weapon mastery, sneak attack, favored target, studied target/studied strike, precise strike and the 2handed fighter overhand chop and backswing abilities with a Mobile Fighter's Pseudo Pounce and full bab to get like to get the ultimate hard hitting super blowTrue, but this is why PFS doesn't allow Custom Races nor Custom Magic Items.
If a DM is crazy enough to allow players to use custom made stuff without knowing if his players are level-headed or complete cheese-mongers, then he really shouldn't be surprised if he sits down with 4 versions of Pun-Pun in front of him.
I look at a possible "Class Creation System" the same way as the Magic Item Creation and Race Creation systems - generally just for the DM and no-one else without his consent.
i allow the race builder with the exception that you have a max of 15 Race Points and you can only use the thing for conversions of either races from prior editions that haven't been converted yet or toned down versions of monstrous races, as long as the abilities and subtype are similar and the subrace has something in common with the base race while being similar to its former counterpart
for example
i will allow a Wood Elf with Darkvision, Stalker, Silent Hunter, that Halfling Sniper Trait, a +2 static bonus to will saves that replaces elven immunities, an alternate set of weapon proficiencies and +2 Strength +2 Dexterity -2 charisma as a valid subrace Via race builder because it is just a mutation of the elven chassis
and at the same time, i will allow a grey elf with darkvision, arcane focus, elven magic, a stalker equivalent ability for diplomacy and sense motive, the human silver tongued ability, mystic past life, dreamspeaker and +2 inteligence +2 charisma -2 strength as another valid example of a mutation of the elven chassis assuming they didn't have weapon familiarity or elven immuniies
the races ecology, enviroment and general approach must be submitted alongside the perks for approval. you can build the race with whatever, but you have to submit why you think the abilities are fitting for that particular subrace or monster, and why i should accept that subrace in the world. but i accept player input all the time when i do the rare instance of DMing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However I point out (again) that any such system would likely end up looking like the heroes system... which is basically a literal programming language for building role playing games in the first place... and it's not just a programming language but an object oriented class protocol one at that which most people simply are not going to understand at first, second and possibly even third blush.
As someone who has been playing HERO since '85, I would say that it is a bit hyperbole, but I do get your point.
The problem for a point based class system in a game not designed from the ground up to be one, is two-fold.
One - synergies and combos that Auren posted about.
Two - the entire "if it's in the rules I can use it". I've seen complaints about players expecting to get customer magic items or be a custom race by GMs on this board, and then we get into the whole player entitlement/GM power flamewar.
In Pathfinder the balance of the game comes from the game itself.
In Hero the balance of the game comes from the GM saying "no" and laying out expectations beforehand.
If you have a class building system (even for GMs) it would be so complex (to be able to balance) that it would likely look worse than the Hero system... which while I am fan, I admit is a complicated system to get into. I used the class building engine that was mentioned upthread. It was easier to build an unbalanced class with that than with Hero - primarily due to combos.
People complain about bloat - trouble is, in a system like Pathfinder where things are restricted to limited choices (feats, classes etc) to get new options you have to release new content.
Hero 5th had the entire game in 1 book, not that much difference in size to the CRB. If you want a game with no bloat (and new options) the only way to do that is to make a system so flexible that all options are in the core book - and with the flexibility comes the ability to make really ugly combinations. The more flexible a system is the easier it is to powergame.
T.H White's classic novel The Once and Future King has only white human knights, yet I wouldn't call the book racist. T.H White was socially conscious about the nature of power particularly the dangers of communism.
This is another bit of pedantery but race erasure is a very important topic. The Once and Future King included Palamedes who was definitely not white. They never really get more specific than Saracen and dark skinned so he could be black or Semitic, but either way not really white.
Flexibility - options - is what people want. And all the new material Paizo has added is giving us that. Why not just recognize that you are creating a "class building system" and DO it rather than creep up to it?
I, for one, want to be able to mix and match far more, without waiting for Paizo to write up the "official" version (archetype, new class, etc.). If they devised the system to allow class building on our own - officially sanction it - then POOF! I'm happy!
(Yeah, yeah - "You can always house rule it." That's what I currently do. I simply want the tools to do so more - "officially".)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat/Options are what you make of it.
You have to pick your line and go from there. Incorporate only what you want and let the rest go or make a home game that uses different parts of it.
There are people who like more options, more places in the world described, different ideas written out. If you do not want that, then you have a powerful tool: your wallet. Don't buy it if you don't like it.
But it is available for those who do, and frankly for Paizo to make money from and feed themselves/their loved ones.
Worried about PFS? Don't be. You can successfully play with just the core book.
In honor of the snow today, I give you the worlds of Elsa: Let it go.
"The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.
Sorry, I meant mostly CRB and maybe APG classes.
Honestly, I don't see why arcanist isn't 100% straight up better than a wizard. I do agree that APs can't account for new options. How many support mounted characters for example? Smiting paladin only wins if you're fighting evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would count myself as being somewhat concerned as of the release of the Advanced Class Guide, which I've held off on buying for a bit. I'm actually more excited about the Occult book, because those classes are introducing a whole new pseudo-psionic thing to Pathfinder and Golarion, which is cool. I'm less excited about the ACG classes, many of which just seem like combat-buffed versions of the core classes (is there a reason to be a rogue now that Slayers exist?)
"The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.Sorry, I meant mostly CRB and maybe APG classes.
Honestly, I don't see why arcanist isn't 100% straight up better than a wizard. I do agree that APs can't account for new options. How many support mounted characters for example? Smiting paladin only wins if you're fighting evil.
Speaking from experience, Rise of the Runelords gets *wrecked* by a decent Summoner.
"The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.Sorry, I meant mostly CRB and maybe APG classes.
Honestly, I don't see why arcanist isn't 100% straight up better than a wizard. I do agree that APs can't account for new options. How many support mounted characters for example? Smiting paladin only wins if you're fighting evil.
Mosg campaigns are against evil. It is pretty much the standard. If a GM is going to have mostly neutral or good opponents it should be stated up front.
As for the arcanist it looks a better on paper than it plays. This has been my experience and what I read of people who have made comments in it.
Speaking from experience, Rise of the Runelords gets *wrecked* by a decent Summoner.
Speaking from experience a party of 1 wizard, 1 cleric, and 1 barbarian wreck Rise of the Runelords. To make it a challenge for a full team fo 4-6 I needed to add levels to every monster, increase combatants per fight, and change every single spell-selection. Karzoug in particular suffered from too many fireballs for being a master of transmutation.
The summoner is basically just more stupid proofed than a few of the other options. It is by base fairly powerful but a build doesn't really increase or decrease that base power much. Whereas a cleric or wizard can just select all terrible spells, as evidenced by Karzoug.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the feeling of bloat related to the number of classes that are sprung on us these days ?
I do not know if someone followed the chronology, but I feel that, before ACG/OA, we had more time to swallow each class that was thrown at us while this does not feel like it's the case here.
August 2009 = Core : 10 classes (but heavily based on 3.5 and with alpha and beta playtests to get used to them)
August 2010 = APG : 6 classes
April 2011 = UM : 1 class
August 2011 = UC : 3 classes
August 2014 = ACG : 10 classes
OA : 6 classes
So, after 3 years with zero new classes and 4 years with only 4 new classes, we are dealing with 10 new classes and 6 new classes in play test.
The only comparable period was the playtest for the APG, and that was a considerably easier learning experience because the 10 classes before were very familiar, which is definitely not the case with those in the ACG.
So, the feeling of class bloat from Paizo does have some actual basis.
Bloat/Options are what you make of it.
You have to pick your line and go from there. Incorporate only what you want and let the rest go or make a home game that uses different parts of it.
There are people who like more options, more places in the world described, different ideas written out. If you do not want that, then you have a powerful tool: your wallet. Don't buy it if you don't like it.
But it is available for those who do, and frankly for Paizo to make money from and feed themselves/their loved ones.
Worried about PFS? Don't be. You can successfully play with just the core book.
In honor of the snow today, I give you the worlds of Elsa: Let it go.
Discussion about bloat on this thread isn't solely about too many options.
It's about how new options are being presented. Sloppy codification, trap options and extreme codification creates unnecessary bloat and prevents many of these new concepts from being included in Pathfinder games.
Incorporating what you want in a game is easily said than done. I have been playing D&D and now Pathfinder with the same group of people for 20 years. And as one would expect, a GM dictating terms to players on what they can have and what they can't doesn't go down too well.
And going through every hardcover release with a fine tooth comb just to have a few options has increasingly become an impractical solution.
I want new options but I can't sacrifice campaign balance to get them.
From posts on this thread, I think many people have a similar issue.
You have identified the source of the symptom (new classes being added). You have not verified that the source has the result that people are claiming it does (making the game bad because of too many options).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the feeling of bloat related to the number of classes that are sprung on us these days ?
I do not know if someone followed the chronology, but I feel that, before ACG/OA, we had more time to swallow each class that was thrown at us while this does not feel like it's the case here.
August 2009 = Core : 10 classes (but heavily based on 3.5 and with alpha and beta playtests to get used to them)
August 2010 = APG : 6 classes
April 2011 = UM : 1 class
August 2011 = UC : 3 classes
August 2014 = ACG : 10 classes
OA : 6 classes
So, after 3 years with zero new classes and 4 years with only 4 new classes, we are dealing with 10 new classes and 6 new classes in play test.
The only comparable period was the playtest for the APG, and that was a considerably easier learning experience because the 10 classes before were very familiar, which is definitely not the case with those in the ACG.
So, the feeling of class bloat from Paizo does have some actual basis.
I see your point, there has been a burst in exponential growth.
Although having new classes would be great, if in fact they were new classes.
New hardcover releases are not necessarily providing new options, but providing fixes and/or patches to problems within the Pathfinder game.
The CRB Monk class is too weak and uninteresting, so Ultimate Combat introduces style feats, they fail to fix the Monk class so they introduce the Brawler class, the Brawler class makes the Monk class obsolete so Pathfinder Unchained is going to have a Monk rewrite.
And with each hardcover release more and more problems are being added to the Pathfinder game because of sloppy codification. Or problems of extreme codification evident in the ARG race builder, any chance of giving Pathfinder players freedom is squashed because the game mechanics are too strict and cumbersome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat/Options are what you make of it.
You have to pick your line and go from there. Incorporate only what you want and let the rest go or make a home game that uses different parts of it.
There are people who like more options, more places in the world described, different ideas written out. If you do not want that, then you have a powerful tool: your wallet. Don't buy it if you don't like it.
But it is available for those who do, and frankly for Paizo to make money from and feed themselves/their loved ones.
Worried about PFS? Don't be. You can successfully play with just the core book.
In honor of the snow today, I give you the worlds of Elsa: Let it go.
Discussion about bloat on this thread isn't solely about too many options.
It's about how new options are being presented. Sloppy codification, trap options and extreme codification creates unnecessary bloat and prevents many of these new concepts from being included in Pathfinder games.
Incorporating what you want in a game is easily said than done. I have been playing D&D and now Pathfinder with the same group of people for 20 years. And as one would expect, a GM dictating terms to players on what they can have and what they can't doesn't go down too well.
And going through every hardcover release with a fine tooth comb just to have a few options has increasingly become an impractical solution.
I want new options but I can't sacrifice campaign balance to get them.
From posts on this thread, I think many people have a similar issue.
I will humbly disagree with you. Incorporating what you want into the game is a matter of doing it. You are reading the book, right? Make notes as you go through on what you are iffy about. Discuss with your players. Repeat as necessary.
I'm not sure I understand the issue of going through each release -- don't you already do that? Heck, I don't take any of this at face value. I like Paizo and I respect the people who write the books but that doesn't mean that I just nod and take things as written. Unless I am misreading something that seems to be what you are saying.
I'll reiterate what I've said on dozens of threads on this subject: I have yet, in 37 or so years, to ever run across a perfect game that I haven't had the desire to modify -- whether to remove a rule I disliked, improved one that I found iffy, and so on. That's part of being a GM IMO. It's part of being a player for that matter -- you can run with something broken and hope someone notices, or you can bring it up and see that it gets fixed/removed in your game.
So yes, you can go over things. It's just a matter of how you'd like to allocate time. Some people play video games for hours a day, or football (fantasy or otherwise). Others prefer to work on their gaming stuff. YMMV, not valid in etc etc.
Speaking from experience, Rise of the Runelords gets *wrecked* by a decent Summoner."The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.Sorry, I meant mostly CRB and maybe APG classes.
Honestly, I don't see why arcanist isn't 100% straight up better than a wizard. I do agree that APs can't account for new options. How many support mounted characters for example? Smiting paladin only wins if you're fighting evil.
I have never played a game with a Summoner, but the general consensus is that it's a broken class.
Pathfinder Unchained promises to fix the class.
Paizo does provide support for new hardcover releases, creating APs with the new content. Something D&D 3.5 never did.
I would count myself as being somewhat concerned as of the release of the Advanced Class Guide, which I've held off on buying for a bit. I'm actually more excited about the Occult book, because those classes are introducing a whole new pseudo-psionic thing to Pathfinder and Golarion, which is cool. I'm less excited about the ACG classes, many of which just seem like combat-buffed versions of the core classes (is there a reason to be a rogue now that Slayers exist?)
No(for many people) but that could be said before the slayer existed.
Speaking from experience, Rise of the Runelords gets *wrecked* by a decent Summoner."The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.Sorry, I meant mostly CRB and maybe APG classes.
Honestly, I don't see why arcanist isn't 100% straight up better than a wizard. I do agree that APs can't account for new options. How many support mounted characters for example? Smiting paladin only wins if you're fighting evil.
Define "decent". An ok summoner should not be able to do if. Now if you optimize it then quiet a few classes can do it but I dont see a summoner soloing the last fight unless the GM is being nice.
Speaking from experience, Rise of the Runelords gets *wrecked* by a decent Summoner."The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.Sorry, I meant mostly CRB and maybe APG classes.
Honestly, I don't see why arcanist isn't 100% straight up better than a wizard. I do agree that APs can't account for new options. How many support mounted characters for example? Smiting paladin only wins if you're fighting evil.
I have never played a game with a Summoner, but the general consensus is that it's a broken class.
Pathfinder Unchained promises to fix the class.
Paizo does provide support for new hardcover releases, creating APs with the new content. Something D&D 3.5 never did.
The concensus is not that it is broken by being too powerful. The wizard still owns the game. It has too many rules exceptions which causes players to build it incorrectly. Almost every time a GM complains and an audit is done rule errors are the reason. Another problem is that it is too easy to optimize. That is not a bloat issue. It is however poor execution.
Define "decent". An ok summoner should not be able to do if. Now if you optimize it then quiet a few classes can do it but I dont see a summoner soloing the last fight unless the GM is being nice.
I haven't played RotRL yet, but assuming the last fight doesn't have see invisibility. Summoner casts invisibility on himself. Summoner spams summon monster/eidolon spells and buffs until bad guy dead.
The concensus is not that it is broken by being too powerful. The wizard still owns the game. It has too many rules exceptions which causes players to build it incorrectly. Almost every time a GM complains and an audit is done rule errors are the reason. Another problem is that it is too easy to optimize. That is not a bloat issue. It is however poor execution.
I still don't get how wizard > arcanist. They get the same spells known, arcanist gets much more flexibility throughout the day.
From a business standpoint it really does matter on the perception of an average person that might want to try a RPG system than what a veteran thinks.
If they feel that Paizo is a bloated system then they will balk and head for D&D.
And one of the reasons are that the Rpg players/groups as a whole are aging. They do not have the time because of family/economic situations. They want something simple and engaging. Something that they might get their kids involved in.
Being overwhelmed by so called bloat will stop new and casual players from getting into the game. Any game actually.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a business standpoint it really does matter on the perception of an average person that might want to try a RPG system than what a veteran thinks.
If they feel that Paizo is a bloated system then they will balk and head for D&D.
And one of the reasons are that the Rpg players/groups as a whole are aging. They do not have the time because of family/economic situations. They want something simple and engaging. Something that they might get their kids involved in.
Being overwhelmed by so called bloat will stop new and casual players from getting into the game. Any game actually.
This is 100% not true. The most important thing to get people into the game is attractive entry points to the hobby regardless of total number of books. The beginners box for 3.5 and Pathfinder were both excellent starting points. Anyone who is scared away by there being over a dozen rule books will also be scared away by the bare minimum core book being over 300 pages long, or in D&D's case there being 3 separate required books.
It's actually really similar to wargames. Games on the rise always have good starting points that people can buy and feel like "this is all I need" to start. It's the reason in many markets Privateer Press games and Malifaux are outstripping Warhammer. They have good starter sets, core rules that are concisely explained, and community outreach programs. Whereas Warhammer has a 800+ page starting book, terrible deals are starter sets, and no officially sanctioned tournaments. If anything the CRB is what is turning people away from Pathfinder because of the huge initial commitment.
Or you could try the excellent d20-based supplement that does this.
Didn't Mutants and Masterminds essentially do this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a business standpoint it really does matter on the perception of an average person that might want to try a RPG system than what a veteran thinks.
If they feel that Paizo is a bloated system then they will balk and head for D&D.
And one of the reasons are that the Rpg players/groups as a whole are aging. They do not have the time because of family/economic situations. They want something simple and engaging. Something that they might get their kids involved in.
Being overwhelmed by so called bloat will stop new and casual players from getting into the game. Any game actually.
I agree, that some people are after a more simple RPG, and as expected they jumped ship to D&D 5e.
I don't think it is a age specific thing, even though age has something to do with it.
My gaming group are all aged veterans and have less time than when they were playing D&D in their younger years. But they are no less passionate and love the complexities and nuances that Pathfinder brings to a RPG.
Having a RPG with a expansive catalog, is a measure of success and boosts confidence to invest in a gaming franchise.
Also from my experience, its often the veterans who recruit the new players.
@Alex Smith908, great reply, concise and informative. Definitely a time when your pedantry comes in handy.
Define "decent". An ok summoner should not be able to do if. Now if you optimize it then quiet a few classes can do it but I dont see a summoner soloing the last fight unless the GM is being nice.I haven't played RotRL yet, but assuming the last fight doesn't have see invisibility. Summoner casts invisibility on himself. Summoner spams summon monster/eidolon spells and buffs until bad guy dead.
The concensus is not that it is broken by being too powerful. The wizard still owns the game. It has too many rules exceptions which causes players to build it incorrectly. Almost every time a GM complains and an audit is done rule errors are the reason. Another problem is that it is too easy to optimize. That is not a bloat issue. It is however poor execution.I still don't get how wizard > arcanist. They get the same spells known, arcanist gets much more flexibility throughout the day.
As for the arcanist he gets less different spell to cast, and the wizard is not exactly lacking in flexibility. It is a close race though over all. Of course which one pulls ahead is dependent upon the chosen school also. It is like choosing between 1 trillion dollars and 1.1 trillion dollars. With that much money there really is not much difference. Of course I would like to see an arcanist past level 10. That might make me change my mind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a vet, and I do have less time, but I also know the rules well enough that new books won't bother me. They are really not much different than the old rules.
Paladin Smite= 1 new smite at 4th level and every 3 levels.
The same goes for the guide ranger with his ability. I have noticed other abilities are very similar like this also.
So from what I have seen what you want in a game, and your liking of various options is more of a factor than how long you have been playing.
As for learning new classes I tend to ignore them until I need to learn them. Well, I try to get a basic understanding of how it works, but I don't worry too much about every archetype until I actually decide to play one. If a player wants to use one then I actually go read it in greater detail. That is how I learned the magus and summoner since I did not care for either of them. I don't dislike them. I just don't see myself playing either class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the definition of bloated is to be malformed and not resembling the original.
Jabba the hurt probably looked like greedo before he ate too much and became bloated.
Pathfinders original purpose was to streamline and make 3.5 new again.
Instead it has fallen into all the same traps.It made things better in the beginning. Took away the crazy over abundance of rules to peruse through and compiled them into something playable and understandable.
This is where they got their following, and shockingly fast I might add.
But now, looking back, we could have all just continued to play 3.5… Paizo could have just kept on with APs and Printed Golarion supplements, because the systems look the same and have the same shortcomings now.
You are making some really wild assumptions about why people moved to pathfinder, and also in part, paizo's justification for pfrpg in the first place.
The whole point of pfrpg was to have a living ruleset to print adventures for. Living means changing. And yes, that means releasing books. For many, new is good and a lack of new is a turn off. In my mind, pathfinder rpg became a real game when the advanced players guide came out, and paizo ADDED their take to the 3.x system, instead of reprinting anwith slight changes the existing core rules.
If paizo never added anything of their own to pathfinder and stopped at the core rules, i'd no longer be a customer. In fact, during the stretch between ultimate combat and ultimate campaign, i didnt buy any paizo products more or less, what was released didnt particularly appeal to me. Ultimate campaign did, and so did the advanced class guide. So I've bought them, and consequently I picked up new aps, started running them and bought additional products to support those aps. New rules material, in my case classes in particular, get me excited about playing the game, and quite frankly, get me to spend money.
I am not the only person who feels this way. There is a reason...
Im making no wild assumptions, I was around for the first play tests.
I was there in the beginning, before there was even a CRB.I read the posts By JJ and SKR and JB.
That's how I know, there is no need to assume.
If not for the new material released I probably would have lost interest in Pathfinder for another game all together. You can do a lot with the Core Rule Book which is technically all you need to get started. Options are fun, that is what got me to buy additional books and 3rd party material, I loved what was done with The Genius Guide to the Godling that was what sparked my interest in 3rd party products. The Magus is the reason I picked up Ultimate Magic, The Gunslinger was the reason I picked up Ultimate Combat, The Alchemist and the Inquisitor got me to buy Advanced Players Guide, and the Bloodrager and Brawler was got me to pick up the Advanced Class Guide. I picked up the Advanced Race guide mainly for the Race options and the race builder. These options have been fun and benefited my Games that I run.
I see a lot of good options and choices from both Unchained and Occult Adventures and will probably pick them up as well.
I don't see any of this as being bloat...Paizo is in the business to sell a product, they make a good quality product at a price I can afford, I keep getting new material and support for said product so I'm happy to keep giving them my money and suggesting them when it comes to getting people into the hobby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
What I see is an opinion. Others disagree. There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion as long as you realize that an opinion is what it is.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the feeling of bloat related to the number of classes that are sprung on us these days ?
I do not know if someone followed the chronology, but I feel that, before ACG/OA, we had more time to swallow each class that was thrown at us while this does not feel like it's the case here.
August 2009 = Core : 10 classes (but heavily based on 3.5 and with alpha and beta playtests to get used to them)
August 2010 = APG : 6 classes
April 2011 = UM : 1 class
August 2011 = UC : 3 classes
August 2014 = ACG : 10 classes
OA : 6 classes
So, after 3 years with zero new classes and 4 years with only 4 new classes, we are dealing with 10 new classes and 6 new classes in play test.
The only comparable period was the playtest for the APG, and that was a considerably easier learning experience because the 10 classes before were very familiar, which is definitely not the case with those in the ACG.
So, the feeling of class bloat from Paizo does have some actual basis.
The real outlier on that list is the Advanced Class Guide. In retrospect that book should have followed the APG model and focus on six classes, with a bit more support (and perhaps development) on those. I think the fact that it was a CLASS guide and the starting point of trying to replicate a bunch of interesting "multiclass' concepts escalated more than it should have, in retrospect.
Occult Adventures follows the Advanced Player's Guide pattern of six classes. The fact that it is tied to a new type of magic (and several associated cultural archetypes) means that "if it's psychic and it's worth having in the game, it's going in this book."
While my crystal ball is a bit shabby and cracked, I feel pretty confident that future books will not include the sort of new class pace we've seen over 2014-2015.
Come to think of it, if ACG was focused on Slayer, Shaman, Investigator, Skald, Bloodrager and Brawler it could have gotten that fifth star from me easily.
I'd be the same if you replaced skald with swashbuckler.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... Skald, Hunter and Arcanist would be better off as archetypes or alternate casting system. Warpriest could have been completely removed from the book, or maybe turned into an Inquisitor or Cleric archetype... Sacred Fist is the only good thing in that class. And it could have been an Inquisitor/Cleric archetype as well.
We don't really need 6 new classes every year. We don't even need getting a new class every year... We already have 36 of them. And a few of those are quite unnecessary already.
While my crystal ball is a bit shabby and cracked, I feel pretty confident that future books will not include the sort of new class pace we've seen over 2014-2015.
Good to hear...though you should ask Auntie Lisa to spring for a new crystal ball! :P
If not for the new material released I probably would have lost interest in Pathfinder for another game all together. You can do a lot with the Core Rule Book which is technically all you need to get started. Options are fun, that is what got me to buy additional books and 3rd party material, I loved what was done with The Genius Guide to the Godling that was what sparked my interest in 3rd party products. The Magus is the reason I picked up Ultimate Magic, The Gunslinger was the reason I picked up Ultimate Combat, The Alchemist and the Inquisitor got me to buy Advanced Players Guide, and the Bloodrager and Brawler was got me to pick up the Advanced Class Guide. I picked up the Advanced Race guide mainly for the Race options and the race builder. These options have been fun and benefited my Games that I run.
I see a lot of good options and choices from both Unchained and Occult Adventures and will probably pick them up as well.
I don't see any of this as being bloat...Paizo is in the business to sell a product, they make a good quality product at a price I can afford, I keep getting new material and support for said product so I'm happy to keep giving them my money and suggesting them when it comes to getting people into the hobby.
And this is sort of the crux of the issue. One man's options is another mans bloat. I for one prefer to add options to the game via base classes. I prefer them to everything else, including new feats, new spells and new achetypes.
Obviously some people prefer as few classes as possible be added to the game, and others prefer as few options period as possible to be added to the game.
We can argue all day what 'bloat' is. In the end we wont get anywhere when we have fundamentally conflicting values, team new stuff WANTS new stuff. New Stuff is inherantly good. Team keep it simple Doesn't want new stuff. New options are inherently problematic. No one is 'wrong' here.
The only question is what if anything can we do about it. I am not sure what that is. But I think we can stop arguing over what constitutes bloat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, where can I get my "Team keep it simple" T-shirt? :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im making no wild assumptions, I was around for the first play tests.
I was there in the beginning, before there was even a CRB.
I read the posts By JJ and SKR and JB.
That's how I know, there is no need to assume.
I was there in the beggining. I read their posts too. I remember them committing to a (relative to wizards of the coast) slow 2 hardback rulebooks a year. Thats what they have done. This is precisely the planned progression of the volume of rules.
And you are making wild assumtions.
It made things better in the beginning. Took away the crazy over abundance of rules to peruse through and compiled them into something playable and understandable.This is where they got their following, and shockingly fast I might add.
You are assuming that when JJ, SKR and JB said 'streamlined' which they did, they meant in terms of character options. I think they meant in terms of the way the general rules functioned. IE grapple rules, and combat maneuvers. The simplification of the skill point system, and others.
You are also assuming the divorce from the 3.x back library of options was a reason they got their following. I think for many the reverse is true. The fact that backwards compatability was a goal speaks to this as incorrect. For many, supported by backwards compatability, much of that 'overabundance of rules' was a primary reason of picking up pathfinder. It was for my group. It was for many others.
Look at the conversion threads, particularly in the early years, countless people were looking to take their 3.x options into pathfinder. That is obviously less as there is more and more made directly for pathfinder, but many of that initial and current following came BECAUSE of all those options, not to get away from them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Count me in the 'moar options' camp. If I want to play an RPG where options are purely cosmetic and the only difference between a spear-wielding Norse valkyrie and a gnome dinosaur hunter is fluff-only, I have all those retro-D&D and rules-light systems to keep me warm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, where can I get my "Team keep it simple" T-shirt? :P
they are right next to the 'Team Lamontius go play the game the way you and your group want' tanktops, old english font
Hey, where can I get my "Team keep it simple" T-shirt? :P
They're right next to new copies of FATE core rules and Dungeon World. Two games you sound like you'd rather be playing than Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diferent options should do and feel diferent. But the diference should not be this one rocks and that other one sucks, and PF have too much of that. It is totally undesrtandable that not everything can be perfect, but making that kind of desing on purpose is bad, IMHO.
The relative effectiveness of given options is an entirely seperate issue then the idea of bloat if it is defined as the abundance of options weighing down the game and making it difficult to play/introduce new players.
Things like power creep, trap options, and the like are a different conversation. Unless we just want to combine all the 'weekly' threads into one and have our weekly to monthly, magic vs martial, paladins alignment, rollplay vs roleplay, paizo should stop releasing rpg line books, bemoaning the underpoweredness of the rogue, monk, fighter, and bemoaning the overpowerdness of the summoner, druid, wizard, and whatever else the flavor of the week is (arcanist i guess?) into one massive flamewar thread. We could do that. It would probably be as productive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, where can I get my "Team keep it simple" T-shirt? :PThey're right next to new copies of FATE core rules and Dungeon World. Two games you sound like you'd rather be playing than Pathfinder.
Lets keep away from this shall we? Pathfinder is actually quite a flexible game. We dont need to tell people to go elsewhere if they dont like our particular vision of the game. There HAS to be a better compromise then that.
I firmly believe there is room for both Team KISS and Team MOAR in pathfinder. We just gotta figure out how to do it. Maybe it wont be a happy marriage, but we can be casual roomates, cant we?