Pathfinder Bloat - are you concerned?


Product Discussion

501 to 550 of 761 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

MOAR OPTIONS! THAT CAN BE EASILY IGNORED FOR SIMPLICITY!


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.

And we'd gotten so far without a "love it or leave it" post, too. *sigh*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.
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've never found anything wrong with, or been offended by someone suggesting that playing another game might increase their enjoyment. D20 is a very modular system at it's base level, and can be made to fit a lot of themes/styles, but often there are systems that are designed from the ground up to fit that theme better.

If someone's problems with Pathfinder are X, Y, and Z, but enjoy A, B, and C, and there is a game system that provides A, B, and C, without X, Y, and Z, there's nothing wrong with suggesting that they look at that other game sytem, and consider exchanging their money in return for putting less effort into removing X, Y, and Z, while keeping A, B, and C in Pathfinder.

Obviously "Stop complaining, just go play something else," isn't a positive message, but I don't see the harm in the stance of "Hey, you don't like X, Y, and Z in Pathfinder, Game 2 might be something you really enjoy." The quoted text falls a bit too close to the former message, though.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.
And we'd gotten so far without a "love it or leave it" post, too. *sigh*

I do find it less annoying that those people who seem to think that d20 is the one true way to play RPGs, and anything that isn't directly based on 3.x is either a non-game, or is inherently inferior and not worth even bothering to learn about, much less play.


Kthulhu wrote:
I do find it less annoying that those people who seem to think that d20 is the one true way to play RPGs, and anything that isn't directly based on 3.x is either a non-game, or is inherently inferior and not worth even bothering to learn about, much less play.

No doubt. I totally get being open to a variety of games -- I'm a big fan of Savage Worlds.

It's just that mechanics aren't the only reason to select a game system. There's the availability of adventures, the quality of supporting material, the ease of finding other players, the price, etc.

I suppose "love it or leave it" -- whether "it" happens to be a country or, an RPG, or whatever else -- just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather stick around and try to make "it" better.


TOZ wrote:
MOAR OPTIONS! THAT CAN BE EASILY IGNORED FOR SIMPLICITY!

...unless one is playing PFS. And yes, I know that this point has (also) been brought up to death. :)


Kolokotroni wrote:

Things like power creep, trap options, and the like are a different conversation..

I don't think so. If blaot is "paizo publish too much!", well yes that is what they do. There is nothing to argue here really. They will keep doing it as long as people like to buy their books.


bugleyman wrote:
TOZ wrote:
MOAR OPTIONS! THAT CAN BE EASILY IGNORED FOR SIMPLICITY!
...unless one is playing PFS. And yes, I know that this point has (also) been brought up to death. :)

===========

DISCLAIMER: I have never played PFS:.

=======
with the exception of the DM I think a random dude playnig PFS can pretty much ignore everything that is not related to his own character and let the dude with the goblin summoner to deal with his charcacter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

No doubt. I totally get being open to a variety of games -- I'm a big fan of Savage Worlds.

It's just that mechanics aren't the only reason to select a game system. There's the availability of adventures, the quality of supporting material, the ease of finding other players, the price, etc.

I suppose "love it or leave it" -- whether "it" happens to be a country or, an RPG, or whatever else -- just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather stick around and try to make "it" better.

I'm sorry if I came off as rude but there are some games that are really good at having a small number of rules, but that isn't what Pathfinder or even d20 excels at. It seems like people who complain about bloat want to be playing some other game but stay with Pathfinder out of habit, lack of experience with other games, or peer pressure as it were. Then they try to force Pathfinder yo be what they want it to be by whining every time more rules are added. Completely ignoring that without those book sales Paizo would likely become much smaller or go out of business.


bugleyman wrote:
TOZ wrote:
MOAR OPTIONS! THAT CAN BE EASILY IGNORED FOR SIMPLICITY!
...unless one is playing PFS. And yes, I know that this point has (also) been brought up to death. :)

Yeah I think a lot of that is more of a complaint to take up with those running PFS. Ask if they could scale back some bits of it, if you're having issue in actual games.

Grand Lodge

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Yeah I think a lot of that is more of a complaint to take up with those running PFS. Ask if they could scale back some bits of it, if you're having issue in actual games.

If you could see the discussion we are having in the VO forums, you wouldn't be worried about PFS.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

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.

Pendagast wrote:


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.

My group crossed over from D&D 3.5e to Pathfinder because they fixed problems with the 3.5 system. Animal companion, polymorph spell, dead levels, opposed maneuver rolls etc.

We would of preferred if it was less backwards compatible.

What we are disappointed about in Pathfinder is that it started to introduce options that were in 3.5e, the things that we were running away from, like lowering the cost of spell levels with metamagic feats.

That's where I agree with Pendagast, Pathfinder's design strategy has moved too far way from what they started out with the CRB.

I personally love 'moar' options and many in my group love them as well. But I love game balance more and I would love to have both.


bugleyman wrote:
TOZ wrote:
MOAR OPTIONS! THAT CAN BE EASILY IGNORED FOR SIMPLICITY!
...unless one is playing PFS. And yes, I know that this point has (also) been brought up to death. :)

I have a question, how big is Pathfinder Society for offline play?

Is it run through gaming stores?

I live in Australia and gaming stores (where they sell Pathfinder) have nearly all closed down. Same thing with Games Workshop stores.

Through the rise of popularity in video games, and internet sales. In Australia, internet sales avoid paying government services and sales tax and avoid high overheads like (rent and insurance) and Australian's have high wages.

Pretty much Pathfinder books are half price when bought through Amazon or the Book Depository (UK).

And Australian websites that provide roleplayers the opportunity to meet up is inundated with Big Band Theory and Community fans who want to have the D&D/Pathfinder experience *sigh*

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

I have a question, how big is Pathfinder Society for offline play?

Is it run through gaming stores?

Here in Phoenix we have gamedays at six different stores, and we organize at at least two or three conventions a year.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

I have a question, how big is Pathfinder Society for offline play?

Is it run through gaming stores?

Here in Phoenix we have gamedays at six different stores, and we organize at at least two or three conventions a year.

Wow, PFS is pretty big then. Good to see.

I always wondered what effect the GFC had on organized gaming, yet from what you say it is still going strong.

I have seen comments about PFS in these forums and really didn't know the level of participation. Thanks.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fairly certain we aren't the biggest, but we are probably larger than most due to being a major city. I know some other regional coordinators can speak to their areas better than I. We've also grown in the past year or so, from just two stores when I first moved to the area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If you could see the discussion we are having in the VO forums, you wouldn't be worried about PFS.

Curse you and your super-secret forum of star-bellied sneetches!


Kolokotroni wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.

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?

The game already has that to an extent. You can play with just the core rule book, and if you want more then use more books.

Other than that you need a redesign from the group up, which is basically a new system.


Morzadian wrote:


What we are disappointed about in Pathfinder is that it started to introduce options that were in 3.5e, the things that we were running away from, like lowering the cost of spell levels with metamagic feats.

As a GM and player I was using 3.5 options selectively until PF started to put out more options. Now I don't really use it anymore. There are a few things I miss, but I can live without them. Everyone wants something different. You don't like the metamagic reducing feats, but I actually like them, so to me it was "about time". To you it was "not this again". Unless you are a PFS GM you can just not use options you don't like, and I really don't see how options you don't use are hurting your game. Yeah you might get that stubborn player who keeps asking for_____ even after you say no 1000 times, but unless he is your best friend he can be uninvited. If he is your friend then tell him no, and hope he eventually leaves you alone about it.

PS: I have not had to deal with that player yet, so I dont have much better advice for you.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


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.

I definitely agree with this, and so does everybody else. Occult Adventures would have had fewer classes if we didn't try to put all of the relevant concepts in the same book, rather than drib-drabbing them out over the years.

It's difficult for me to think of a book concept that could spawn enough "legitimate" classes to reach even six at this point.

Occult/Psychic is a very rich vein, that we've been deliberately leaving largely untapped until we could "do it right," all at the same time.

If you've got tons of ideas of other themes like that that inspire classes that absolutely demand to be made and that would meet with general acclaim, I'd be delighted to hear them.


There was no psychic magic so they had to wait for this book. People did not want to accept arcane magic just fluffed as psychic.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Artificer
Warlock
Tome of Battle classes
Fighter re-do/replacement
Dragon Rider

Just to name a few oft-repeated requests.


"It's just that mechanics aren't the only reason to select a game system. There's the availability of adventures, the quality of supporting material, the ease of finding other players, the price, etc."

The only reason I finally gave in and started playing/GMing Pathfinder is that I couldn't find enough people who wanted to play or GM in anything else. It's hard enough finding good, reliable players who are able and willing to commit to a campaign. When you do, unfortunately, you tend to be left with Pathfinder, at least in my area.


Duncan7291 wrote:

I'm concerned about the introduction of new classes so soon after the release of the ACG. I'm concerned that Pathfinder is become bloated and creating such a load of information that new players or GM's may feel the learning curve is too high to become vested in this system.

What are yall's thoughts? (Note: I'm not complaining just to complain, this is a real concern of mine and I would appreciate some honest discourse on the subject.)

I share your concern and I don't even engage in PFS play. Even for our homebrew games use CRB and APG only. Works for us.

Ruyan.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t mind more options, but new content is being released quicker than I can keep up. I roleplay multiple times a week, but we tend to play long campaigns and a mixture of systems. There’s still content from APG, UC & UM that we haven't touched on.

It’s not a problem in home games, but it has driven me away from PFS. Last con I went to I was sat with a lizard, a fox and two glowing outsiders who were all playing weird munchkin archetypes that I’d never heard of. “I’m done”


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Dragon Rider

What about ninja dragon riders? They can strike back at that accursed Chibi-chan!


Gorbacz wrote:
Tome of Battle classes

I don't even care about the classes so much as the options to do neat things other than "I make a full-attack."


Tarantula wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Tome of Battle classes
I don't even care about the classes so much as the options to do neat things other than "I make a full-attack."

I think that problem runs deeper.


As a 12-year veteran of D20 games, option paralysis and bloat does not personally concern me as a player. In fact, one of the big draws Pathfinder has is the wealth of material both 1st and 3rd Party.

However, this can be a double-edged sword when recruiting new and inexperienced players. Pathfinder is a very rules-heavy RPG in comparison to other retroclones and non-3rd D&D Editions. Hundreds of options in regards to spells to feats, dashed on top of options for race, class, and ability scores can be very daunting.

I own the Beginner Box, and it can be a great way for introducing new blood to the game, but overall the system it uses is not well-supported or OGL to my knowledge.

So my main concern for Pathfinder is making it more appealing to prospective players when are many rules-lite fantasy games and retro-clones already on the market.


Erik Mona wrote:
Lemmy wrote:


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.

I definitely agree with this, and so does everybody else. Occult Adventures would have had fewer classes if we didn't try to put all of the relevant concepts in the same book, rather than drib-drabbing them out over the years.

It's difficult for me to think of a book concept that could spawn enough "legitimate" classes to reach even six at this point.

Occult/Psychic is a very rich vein, that we've been deliberately leaving largely untapped until we could "do it right," all at the same time.

If you've got tons of ideas of other themes like that that inspire classes that absolutely demand to be made and that would meet with general acclaim, I'd be delighted to hear them.

As I've said elsewhere, I do think, however, that there are really only 3 "new" classes in Occult Adventures - the Kineticist, Occultist, and Medium are very original and really unlike other any already-existing classes in their form and function; the Mesmerist, Spiritualist, and Psychic, however, are out-and-out alternate classes of the Bard, Summoner, and Sorcerer.

That's not a bad thing, at least if they're listed as such.

I don't know how players would react to being told they're getting 6 "new" classes when 3 of them are pretty obviously based directly on existing classes, so I kinda hope that they're listed as Alt Classes; that way, people can't really complain about them being thematic duplicates of those classes.


Libertad wrote:

As a 12-year veteran of D20 games, option paralysis and bloat does not personally concern me as a player. In fact, one of the big draws Pathfinder has is the wealth of material both 1st and 3rd Party.

However, this can be a double-edged sword when recruiting new and inexperienced players. Pathfinder is a very rules-heavy RPG in comparison to other retroclones and non-3rd D&D Editions. Hundreds of options in regards to spells to feats, dashed on top of options for race, class, and ability scores can be very daunting.

I own the Beginner Box, and it can be a great way for introducing new blood to the game, but overall the system it uses is not well-supported or OGL to my knowledge.

So my main concern for Pathfinder is making it more appealing to prospective players when are many rules-lite fantasy games and retro-clones already on the market.

That's not entirely an RPG-exclusive thing, though - lots of games with expansions suffer the same "problem."

In Magic the Gathering, it's better to introduce someone to the game with a simple-to-understand deck like Burn or a tribal deck like Elves, rather than thrusting them straight into crazy decks like High Tide or Storm.

Even something like Munchkin is a lot easier to understand, if you've never played RPGs at least, if you start them off with base Munchkin, rather than go straight into 2-8+Pathfinder, and include Steeds, Hirelings, Dungeons, and Factions.

With Pathfinder, it's probably better to introduce someone to the game with just the CRB stuff - the Sorcerer, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are nice, easy classes that help them get the idea of casting spells, using skills, dungeon-crawling, and conducting combat. After they get the hang of it, THEN introduce them to more involved classes like the Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Wizard.


Morzadian wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
TOZ wrote:
MOAR OPTIONS! THAT CAN BE EASILY IGNORED FOR SIMPLICITY!
...unless one is playing PFS. And yes, I know that this point has (also) been brought up to death. :)

I have a question, how big is Pathfinder Society for offline play?

Is it run through gaming stores?

I live in Australia and gaming stores (where they sell Pathfinder) have nearly all closed down. Same thing with Games Workshop stores.

Through the rise of popularity in video games, and internet sales. In Australia, internet sales avoid paying government services and sales tax and avoid high overheads like (rent and insurance) and Australian's have high wages.

Pretty much Pathfinder books are half price when bought through Amazon or the Book Depository (UK).

And Australian websites that provide roleplayers the opportunity to meet up is inundated with Big Band Theory and Community fans who want to have the D&D/Pathfinder experience *sigh*

What state/city do you live in? PFS is big in NSW (particularly in Sydney). In Perth there's much more play done via gaming clubs. That said I know all of the large capital cities have PFS organizers. Even Canberra.

As for bloat, I don't mind it. I've played Pathfinder since 2009 and I've worked my way through every class in the core Rulebook at least once. Now I enjoy the CRB classes quite a bit. I made a new wizard last weekend for PFS (summoning wizard). However without archetypes I'd probably have 1 more class to make (rogue) before needing to retire the book. With archetypes though I'd love to make a couple more classes. To me the books with new classes are aimed at 3rd ed and to a lesser extant 3.5 players. Pathfinder was a new coat of paint on these rules so they've had 7-14 years of playing the same core classes. If after 4 years (I've taken most of 2014 off) the CRB is nearing it's end of life, I can only imagine where they're at.

Also an Occult-only party would be awesome in Carrion Crown. It's a shame the rules weren't available when I ran it.


Libertad wrote:
.So my main concern for Pathfinder is making it more appealing to prospective players when are many rules-lite fantasy games and retro-clones already on the market.

If you can avoid power creep then having a core Rulebook character should be the same as having a character built using APG/UM/ARG/ACG with a couple of OA feats thrown in too.


Let´s not forget, power creep is also something subjective.
Only because person x feels something is too strong or maybe a fighter should not be able to do something, doesn´t mean person y has the same opinion.

Also, there is a thing called system mastery. The more time you spend reading and comparing things, the more you find and the better you get.
This difference starts with newer players versus long-time players, but can be easily overcome by spending a lot of time.
To a relative new player, the level 7 wizard seems godlike versus the same level fighter, doesn´t matter the resources.

Adding to that, parts of the culture here in the forum, all that min-maxing and DPR olympiades and feeling that it´s all about the highest possible damage in the shortest amount of time, can be difficult.
It certainly influences a lot of people coming here freshly and then probably their gaming style and culture.

If you ask me, there are enough possibilities to powergame in the CRB, the rest only adds more options and broadens the possibilities.


I have a confession to make. I don't actually read any of the books I have or acquire. As a GM I just use them as a reference if something comes up. 90 percent of the options in the books are crap, victims of Sturgeon's Law. I'm not going to read 100+ page books and 30+ page splats to glean the few nuggets of useful info out of them. I just go to the forums or google builds to see what is actually likely to come up.

I would honestly like pathfinder 2.0 now. The FAQs and Errata pages are novel length at this point. Sifting through the thousands of options to find the good stuff is getting to be annoying. For instance the MM adventure path uses 4 bestiaries, all of the hard cover books, some 3rd party material, the supporting splat books, ect ect. I like the new classes in a vacuum, but 30+ classes and their hundreds of archetypes is getting to be too much.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
notabot wrote:
I would honestly like pathfinder 2.0 now.

Why, exactly?

So you can buy the same 100+ page books and 30+ page splats, that you aren't going to read and is 90 percent crap in your opinion, all over again?


Hayato Ken wrote:

Let´s not forget, power creep is also something subjective.

Only because person x feels something is too strong or maybe a fighter should not be able to do something, doesn´t mean person y has the same opinion.

Yes and no.

SOmetimes it is, and sometimes it is not. When the new option X do the same as option Y but better, then that is powercreep.

Now, the question if powercreep is bad or not, that is subjetive.


notabot wrote:

I have a confession to make. I don't actually read any of the books I have or acquire. As a GM I just use them as a reference if something comes up. 90 percent of the options in the books are crap, victims of Sturgeon's Law. I'm not going to read 100+ page books and 30+ page splats to glean the few nuggets of useful info out of them. I just go to the forums or google builds to see what is actually likely to come up.

I would honestly like pathfinder 2.0 now. The FAQs and Errata pages are novel length at this point. Sifting through the thousands of options to find the good stuff is getting to be annoying. For instance the MM adventure path uses 4 bestiaries, all of the hard cover books, some 3rd party material, the supporting splat books, ect ect. I like the new classes in a vacuum, but 30+ classes and their hundreds of archetypes is getting to be too much.

You do not have to memorize every rule. Basically you need to know the core rules to a decent extent, and the rules of whatever is in play in the current game you are running. Many times even without errata you will be ok. It is nice to know for things that are worded in such a manner as to have to valid readings however.


Libertad wrote:

Pathfinder is a very rules-heavy RPG in comparison to other retroclones and non-3rd D&D Editions. Hundreds of options in regards to spells to feats, dashed on top of options for race, class, and ability scores can be very daunting.

I own the Beginner Box, and it can be a great way for introducing new blood to the game, but overall the system it uses is not well-supported or OGL to my knowledge.

So my main concern for Pathfinder is making it more appealing to prospective players when are many rules-lite fantasy games and retro-clones already on the market.

I have the opposite problem. I only started GMing and playing Pathfinder after trying in vain to put together a group using one of the systems that I prefer. I avoided Pathfinder as long as I could (I don't like class-based games in general), but the relative lack of people (new or not) willing to play something else was a problem.


Not really concerned at all. To all the non PFS players there is always the love it or leave it paradigm. As a GM i use pretty much all paizo hardcover material + Dreamscarred's Psionics and Path of War, if that's too much to deal with for players I help guide them through character creation and eliminate stuff that they won't need.

As for PFS, to players i would recommend the love it or leave it paradigm, because you can always choose to ignore books while making your character. Only GMs have to deal with all of it, although a good player should explain his abilities without the GM having to read the entire class spells and feats from whichever book he took them.


Erik Mona wrote:
I definitely agree with this, and so does everybody else. Occult Adventures would have had fewer classes if we didn't try to put all of the relevant concepts in the same book, rather than drib-drabbing them out over the years.

To be honest, I really wish you had left the psionics-based classes (like the kineticist) out of the book. They don't really fit in with the general 19th century feel of the book.

Quote:


It's difficult for me to think of a book concept that could spawn enough "legitimate" classes to reach even six at this point.

I think you could do it if you moved away from variations on most of the existing classes and go with things that are completely unlike the existing ones. A lot of people would really like to see a dedicated shapeshifter, for example. Not a class that includes some shapeshifting abilities along the line, but one that allows it from first level, and is centered around it. Some of the third party product producers have come up with some really interesting classes, as well.

People tend to push for more classes because they have a hard time fitting their character concepts into an existing one. That's part of the problem with a class-based game - people are always going to want more classes.

You wouldn't necessarily need a book concept, either. It could just be "Advanced Class Guide Volume 2," or something like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm more concerned with added inconsistencies than I am about actual content bloat.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I'm more concerned with added inconsistencies than I am about actual content bloat.

DO you have examples?


Nicos wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I'm more concerned with added inconsistencies than I am about actual content bloat.
DO you have examples?

Brass Knuckles.


Yeah, that was a mess, but is somewhat old.


So, revisiting this thread weeks later, I'd say I'm not concerned about bloat...more like resigned.


Power Creep.

If you look at the first books to come out, then looks at new ones, an think "Why am I reminded of RIFTS?"

THEN, you are definitely feeling power creep.

Power creep is obvious when looking at what came out before, and you see something new, and it has in it what came before, and something a little extra, making what came out before irrelevant . "Why bother with that< This has the same thing, and, I can do this too!'

Bloat, which Pathfinder is, without a doubt into, appears when the base material has had every thing in it explained and expanded, then even more stuff starts coming out, that ultimately is only there because the company rightfully needs to continue to sell stuff to keep existing,

Pathfinder still has a few areas left unexplored, but they need to stick to exploring ONLY those areas, and stop creeqing new stuff that doesn't fit those areas, because virtually all of it that comes out that isn't, is just bloat, to fill a page count, cover, and slap a price tag on it.

I've watched this happen with RIFTS, AD&D 2nd Ed, Ars Magica 3rd edition, DnD 3.X, Classic World of Darkness, New World of Darkness, Cyberpunk 2020, etc.

I can see these things coming with a lucky 30 years of gaming experience.

Pathfinder 2nd Ed needs to come to compress down the options that have been presented, throw away what has been proven not to work, and pull into the core what has come from expansions that has proven to work and should have been there in the first place.

What they should also do in 2nd Edition is produce a single book each year that does away with fluff, and present a bound version of JUST rules and mechanics from the books that came out the year before for condensing and resource reference. A kind of Rules Compendium for that year. It would keep GM;s for instance closer to the rules, but would still require people to buy the original full books to get the information surrounding the rules, the cultures. the stories, the mindsets those mechanics came from.


I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.

Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"

Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep


Cleric makes fighter obsolete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.

Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"

Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep

Would you say swashbuckler and slayer are overpowered compared to wizards?

I know it's apples and oranges, but maybe they are just adjusted in power.

Of course the classes that were underpowered from the get go will not look better afterwards. But that's because they were underpowered from the get go. If we set fighters and rogues for the gold standard of class balance we will just get more classes that are completely outdone by everything else in the CRB.

501 to 550 of 761 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Bloat - are you concerned? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.