Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your insights. I'll be gming in a week or so in PFS so I will learn this rule set. Who knows, I may end up liking it ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be more concerned about Paizo going out of business (without the inflow of new products). Keep the new material coming!
|
I'm not concerned. Whatever I don't like I am free to use or not. I don't get the whole worry over bloat. No one is forced to use it let alone buy more books. Unless your being threatened with physical harm. It just seems that a rpg that comes out with more new material seems to suffer from a "sky is falling syndrome" with some of the fans.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I am concerned about bloat, but more about the imbalanced things that come along with bloat.
Honestly, even before the Advanced Class Guide I was okay with the selection of abilities offered in the core line up of hardbacked books. I didn't need more.
I'm happy to see Paizo put up more AP and similar content. But every new release of classes and feats just has me searching for what else I need to ban so I can open up options to my players who would like to use "shiny new content".
I have mixed feelings regarding the plethora of options. On the one hand, the options are good if you use a toolbox approach to designing your game world. Even having some archetypes that seem to lower the power notches a bit can be useful in some games (at least if they tone down the more powerful casters- the PF cloistered cleric is one of my favorites for a slightly less magical, Victorian era type game.)
OTOH, for me there seems to be a big signal to noise ratio. A lot of the stuff seems to duplicate each other. A lot of this comes from inching PF incrementally/experimentally forward into new ground but sometimes losing pieces of data along the way. Whereas I find whatever design processes they're using usually prevents anything too outrageous from getting out the door (something I'm very greatful for), there's also many times I compare two similar mechanics and notice some discrepancies and just scratch my head in puzzlement. At the same time, many of the classes are variations on the same Vancian based casting chassis, which I am beginning to tire of as the foundation for the majority of classes. I also don't like it because it means more things are coming back to magic (and ultimately the same style of magic) as the dominant way to power.
So I guess it's not so much the concept of having all these options that confounds me but rather the details/execution of them.
I will say that I liked that there were only 19 classes for a long time.
The ACG adding 10 was a little nuts, but all the classes are pretty balanced and more than a few are just awesome.
The Arcanist, Warpriest, and Bloodrager are probably my favorites - they're just so good (yet balanced) and awesome in function.
The Brawler is a really nice class that allows you to make a bulky "action/superhero" build without having to dip into Monk.
The Skald and Investigator are nice classes that've been attempted as Archetypes before that are awesome fleshed out.
The Hunter and Slayer are great for people who've wanted to play either the Nature Warden or the Assassin, but didn't want to have to wait to access the Prestige Classes before being able to use those abilities.
The Shaman is a nice "divine counter-class" to the Witch and lets you play a White Witch more easily.
Frankly, the only real disappointment is the Swashbuckler, and even that isn't too bad (I'm more in love with Opportune Parry & Riposte than I am with the entire class, plus the fact that you can now double up on Grit effectively by dipping 1 level into Swashbuckler).
---
My only real concern with Occult Adventures is that only some of the classes fit as Base Classes (mostly the Kineticist); others - especially the Spiritualist - appear to be better suited as Alternate Classes instead of Base Classes, or even more so as Archetypes.
I'd rather Paizo stick with the model of not having classes be redundant - even with the 29/32 classes right now, they are all substantially different in both form & function. Even classes which have some overlap - mostly involving the Hybrid classes - those overlaps are ENTIRE overlaps; you can still have a party with a Bard and Skald together, and they don't really step on each other's toes (in fact, they can easily compliment one another well).
Considering I still have to read up Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, I'd say I've been concerned for years, and my concerns concretized.
I feel that a good number of books ago there were already more than enough options for players. More than anyone would ever explore in ten lives. While material for game itself is barely tapped.
But of course, market rules are market rules, and we get what is asked more loudly and hungrily.
This is in the AP's and modules, of which are my primary interests from PAIZO. Don't get me wrong, I love PAIZO and their work, but it gets annoying that to run the AP I have to refer to almost every book they've released at times.
I would like it if they would restrict it to the CRB (maybe, and only maybe occasionally, use another book outside the CRB) and the bestiaries...and that's it.
No having to refer to such and such, the ACG, the APG, or anything else in the APs.
Have it as CRB and bestiaries only...
I think that's where it gets most annoying if I had to point to one area of concern.
For a starting GM...if they don't know how to adapt an AP accordingly, it could be crushing as they have all these books to read and learn before even trying to play the current AP's coming out.
But you don't have to have all those books. You look at the AP and see a reference to another book, or a monster that you don't recognize? Swap it out with something in a book you do have. Same with items, classes, whatever. Your players won't know unless they are reading the material as well .. and shame on them if they are!
This is advice for starting GMs or the experienced as an aside. You don't HAVE to have everything that Paizo puts out; I'm trying, but that's my own problem.
All the books do, whether hardbacks or Golarion specific, is give you more options, more lore, and more detail. You don't have to use any or all of it in your games, even if you play on Golarion. You could probably play in one area for an entire campaign and not need the rest of the material.
Bloat or options, it's all about choices. Choose what works for you and don't sweat the rest. It'll be there if you want it, and if you don't, you won't miss it.
And even if you play PFS, so what? You can certainly play and keep up with characters and races from the core book and if you happen to like something that you see someone else playing, maybe explore that book next time.
I think of it as putting in alternatives to multi-classing already established ones. A Hunter is an alternative road to travel than multi-classing a druid/ranger, which simply hasn't worked well since we went away from First Edition style multi-classing.
Honestly, look at the Hunter and then look at the Nature Warden from the APG.
A lot of the "Hybrid" classes are actually more like Prestige Classes re-imagined as Base classes; others are updates of Archetypes or classes from previous versions of D&D
The Arcanist is the Ultimate Magus from 3.5 made into a Base Class
The Bloodrager is the Dragon Disciple, as well as the answer to everyone asking "will there ever be a Dragon Disciple for (X) Bloodline?"
The Brawler is the Brawler Archetype from Fighter made manifest and given a lot more bells & whistles.
The Hunter is the Nature Warden
The Investigator is very much the Sleepless Detective
The Shaman is the Hex Channeler and Hedge Witch archetypes
The Skald is the Savage Skald Archetype
The Slayer is the Assassin without the Evil requirement
The Swashbuckler is the Duelist, the Swordlord Archetype, and the Swordlord Prestige Class rolled into one Errol-Flynn-inspired class
The Warpriest is both the Favored Soul from 3.5 and the Priest/Cleric Class from 1st and 2nd Edition
Also, in regards to "massive" amounts of stuff:
As far as my group (of which I often DM), the only books are:
CRB, APG, ARG, ACG, UC, UM, UE, Bestiary I-IV
And for the DM specifically:
GMG, UCmp, NPC Codex, Monster Codex, MA
So, basically, we stick with the PRD Books, which is less than 20; and only about 13 of those (all 7 of the "players'" books, the Bestiaries, and the NPC Codex & Monster Codex) are really "necessary" to lay the groundwork for any typical campaign that ranges from Sword & Sandals to Steampunk.
We don't typically use any of the periphery materials; the more imbalanced stuff (which usually means "cool at first glance, really underpowered in practice") seems to come from the PFS material - which is pretty understandable. Not every piece of data that comes out for PFS can be tested with a fine-toothed comb the same way the Big Books are; and since PFS is ever-evolving, you expect some blips here and there.
So, we just basically have a blanket "no non-PRD material" rule and only allow a handful of non-PRD things in, like a feat here & there isn't busted and makes a character function better.
So far, that model has served us well, and thus we don't really see much "bloat" - since it seems that this supposed "bloat" comes mostly from the massive amounts of proprietary PFS stuff, rather than from the Big Books.
Part of my concern is the timing. We just got 10 new classes and a source book with additional options. I would like some time to digest those classes and options first. I feel like I was served my 1st course in the meal and before I even finished it they served me the 2nd course.
That's exactly how I felt in September 2009 with the APG playtest! Great description.
Bloat started with the APG.Bloat started with the CRB. Have you seen the size of that sucker?
I know, right? It's almost as big as Using Found Objects as Weapons!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not worried at all.
With all the 3rd party stuff I've got I cleared a hundred base classes long ago.
To me it comes down to world building for me. Even if everything exists in my game, they don't have to all exist in one place.
Barbarian, Bloodrager, Shamen, Skald, Witch plus a few specific archetype for other classes in the Icy savage northern kingdom
Cavaliers, Clerics, Paladins, Wizards and such for my Arthurian style kingdom
and so on and so forth.
It's all just more tools in the toolbox to me
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not worried at all. Bloat is just a bad word for options. Options, are by their very definition, optional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not concerned. Whatever I don't like I am free to use or not. I don't get the whole worry over bloat. No one is forced to use it let alone buy more books. Unless your being threatened with physical harm. It just seems that a rpg that comes out with more new material seems to suffer from a "sky is falling syndrome" with some of the fans.
The only physical harm I'm being threatened with is that my bookshelves might topple and fall on me ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.)
Every time new classes have been introduced there have been posts with people worried about bloat, so no I'm not too worried.
I happen to believe more choices makes for a better gaming experience.
|
We've just stopped buying any more rule books to be honest. Not even bestiary 4 made it to our collections.
Our group has hit saturation point to be honest. Even adventure path wise, after I finish getting iron lords, I think I'll be done. We have more than I can possibly use now.
Bloat is only a problem when you choose to use everything. So in PFS games I can see it being an issue for GMs at least.
As a company, Paizo is just trying to cater for as wide an audience as possible. I know players who are keen for the mystic paths book next year so they can run crb and that book only. Maybe tech Guide if they decide to siberpunk it a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only time I'm concerned about rules bloating is when a rule written later contradicts rules written earlier. I'm even more concerned when the later version is mandatory and not an optional splatbook. If you don't know this FAQ, good for you. Ignorance is bliss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with wrath -- I think one of my bigger breakthroughs was when I realized I can use everything... but not use it all at once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer they refine the archetype system and simply add more good archetypes that actually have been playtested. If a new class does something cool and obviously wouldn't work as an archetype, that's fine. However, the psychic is essentially a sorcerer with a different spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat? Nah...
I see new classes as new options to use your characters, same goes for archetypes. Paizo at least has the decency to support their other books when a new book is released, making the other classes updated.
WotC bloated their own system with too many PrCs, too many classes and NOT enough support for these new ones. They litterally made sure that you only needed the 3 core books to play a game using a brand new book, not to mention that they also provided extra features for classes using the magasines and website.
Same goes with races, items, feats and monsters: the more, the better.
I was in my FLGS on Thursday. One of the employees said he wanted to start a PathFinder campaign, but was concerned about the size of the rule set. In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."
He is no noob. He's an avid gamer. He and I had a long conversation on the various editions the world's most popular RPG.
If the people who sell games for a living are intimidated, I would say there is a problem caused by the bloat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was in my FLGS on Thursday. One of the employees said he wanted to start a PathFinder campaign, but was concerned about the size of the rule set. In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."
He is no noob. He's an avid gamer. He and I had a long conversation on the various editions the world's most popular RPG.
If the people who sell games for a living are intimidated, I would say there is a problem caused by the bloat.
Too much? Technically, all you need is the 3 core books and you're set. The rest is just to expand upon it. The rest of the books only contains more rules if you don't want to bang your head trying to create them.
You don't need more classes than the 11 core ones to have fun.
You don't need more monsters than Bestiary 1 to have fun.
You don't need to know how to run an army to have fun.
I buy the books because it gives my players a LOT of options, but I'm not forcing them to use such rules if they don't want to.
If some of us think bloating is occuring in Pathfinder, wait until you see Golarion as a campaign setting, it has WAAAAAAAAAAY more material than the core rulebooks... and if you're running a world-tour kind of campaign or running sessions between adventure paths, you'll need a LOT of booklets. However, is it a bad thing that there are so many booklets about the various regions? Of course not. The more you have in hand, the less dumb you'LL be if a player can't get an answer or get somewhere because you technically don't know that yourself.
Fortunately, the PDF files are great and cheap ^_^
Just remember this: some DMs create their own classes, races and such... did THEY ever complain about being being by their own material? You should think the same about Paizo's way of using the license ;)
|
|
I can understand when seeing the number of hardcover Pathfinder books and not knowing which ones to buy making someone worried about the number of books. That being said after doing some research it should not be a problem. If one does not want too many rules use the Core and Bestiary 1. With the internet and social media it's easy enough to ask which books are truly needed or not.
I just don't understand why the assumption that many books in a rpg equals bloat and that one is forced to by. I'm a big fan of the New World of Darkness. When I saw the amount of material at my lgs for the it and the various core lines. My first reaction was to ask the staff and if need be do research on what I need. Again no one is forced to buy everything or anything. I'm taking a break from buying more material for awhile. I have many Pathfinder books I need o read as well as other rpgs and other non rpg books. I'm not going to worry about bloat because the more material Paizo produces in print or PDF is more profit in their products. After all one of the goals of rpg products is to produce new material. I like the APG. I can guarantee that myself and the rest of the group are going to buy one copy.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was in my FLGS on Thursday. One of the employees said he wanted to start a PathFinder campaign, but was concerned about the size of the rule set. In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."
He is no noob. He's an avid gamer. He and I had a long conversation on the various editions the world's most popular RPG.
If the people who sell games for a living are intimidated, I would say there is a problem caused by the bloat.
Too much? Technically, all you need is the 3 core books and you're set. The rest is just to expand upon it. The rest of the books only contains more rules if you don't want to bang your head trying to create them.
You don't need more classes than the 11 core ones to have fun.
You don't need more monsters than Bestiary 1 to have fun.
You don't need to know how to run an army to have fun.
Have you considered the fact that "too much" might refer to the nearly 600 page Core Rulebook? When a game's core rulebook has a spine that self-destructs, that might mean something.
No, but I am concerned about the quality of the new products. Given how poorly Paizo designed recent books like the ACG and Mythic Adventures et al, and how poorly they responded to playtest feedback, I'm not optimistic when the playtest forums tell me how horrible things are.
No, but I am concerned about the quality of the new products. Given how poorly Paizo designed recent books like the ACG and Mythic Adventures et al, and how poorly they responded to playtest feedback, I'm not optimistic when the playtest forums tell me how horrible things are.
What was wrong with Mythic Adventures? I thought that book was great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered the fact that "too much" might refer to the nearly 600 page Core Rulebook? When a game's core rulebook has a spine that self-destructs, that might mean something.I was in my FLGS on Thursday. One of the employees said he wanted to start a PathFinder campaign, but was concerned about the size of the rule set. In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."
He is no noob. He's an avid gamer. He and I had a long conversation on the various editions the world's most popular RPG.
If the people who sell games for a living are intimidated, I would say there is a problem caused by the bloat.
Too much? Technically, all you need is the 3 core books and you're set. The rest is just to expand upon it. The rest of the books only contains more rules if you don't want to bang your head trying to create them.
You don't need more classes than the 11 core ones to have fun.
You don't need more monsters than Bestiary 1 to have fun.
You don't need to know how to run an army to have fun.
It doesn't help that the core rule book is actually pretty poorly organized in some ways. It's sad that the rules for how reach weapons actually work is at the end of the "Big and Little creature in combat" section and not in the equipment section under the sub heading "reach."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was in my FLGS on Thursday. One of the employees said he wanted to start a PathFinder campaign, but was concerned about the size of the rule set. In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."
He is no noob. He's an avid gamer. He and I had a long conversation on the various editions the world's most popular RPG.
If the people who sell games for a living are intimidated, I would say there is a problem caused by the bloat.
Too much? Technically, all you need is the 3 core books and you're set. The rest is just to expand upon it. The rest of the books only contains more rules if you don't want to bang your head trying to create them.
You don't need more classes than the 11 core ones to have fun.
You don't need more monsters than Bestiary 1 to have fun.
You don't need to know how to run an army to have fun.I buy the books because it gives my players a LOT of options, but I'm not forcing them to use such rules if they don't want to.
If some of us think bloating is occuring in Pathfinder, wait until you see Golarion as a campaign setting, it has WAAAAAAAAAAY more material than the core rulebooks... and if you're running a world-tour kind of campaign or running sessions between adventure paths, you'll need a LOT of booklets. However, is it a bad thing that there are so many booklets about the various regions? Of course not. The more you have in hand, the less dumb you'LL be if a player can't get an answer or get somewhere because you technically don't know that yourself.
Fortunately, the PDF files are great and cheap ^_^
Just remember this: some DMs create their own classes, races and such... did THEY ever complain about being being by their own material? You should think the same about Paizo's way of using the license ;)
You don't need a lot of things to have fun, but sometimes somethings sure help. :)
In response to your suggestions, if a person doesn't particularly like many of the core options (or it doesn't fit what they want to do), then having wade through a lot of options to get "the diamonds in the rough" can be daunting or irritating. The core rulebook is large enough for some folks to find it oversaturated with options from the get-go. In these situations, having too many options can become the same as having no options because making meaningful decisions becomes either too difficult or time-consuming to be worth it.
That there are places that are filled with more options is probably not a logical answer to the concern being expressed here to those who are already having issues with the amount of details in the material presently being discussed. Density (or lack thereof) compared to other branches of the product line are therefore not particularly relevant, at least not without a recommendation to a version/hack of PF that might be more suited to their needs. (Beginner Box? E6?)
|
I am not overly worried about bloat. I guess I am more worried about my available book shelf space.
I GM PFS on a regular basis. So all of this new materiel can be a bit of a challenge to keep up with. Usually what I do is I ask people to show me the rules so I can read them, if it is a feat, class, race, magic item etc, I explain that the expectation is that if it is outside the core rule book, they are expected to provide me the GM with a copy of the rules so I can look over it to familiarize myself with it. If I have my character note book with me, I show them how I have organized my characters and how I include the rules with my character. I explain that showing the new rules is a simple courtesy to make things easy for the GM. Players are often happy to explain their "rules-fu" and how they have put their character together.
I also play and GM in home games. In one game, since three of my friends are brand new to Pathfinder, (they are familiar with 3.5), we are sticking with just core rule book materiel. My more experienced players are happy to just play core as well. I think we are having a fun game. In my games there isn't really any such thing as a "power curve" because I do my best to tailor my games to challenge my players and their characters.
Basically I tell my players...the core is in, everything else, ask. I most likely will say yes.
Well I guess I have rambled on enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow my players to use all of the hardcover material. Haven't had any problems yet. I don't try to memorize every mechanic of every class. Only the ones that my players are using in the current campaign so that I don't have any surprises. I love all of the options. There's classes from earlier books that I'll never play, and some from the later books that I'll never play. But just having those options available (even if I never partake of them) makes me feel far less constrained as a player and a DM.
No, but I am concerned about the quality of the new products. Given how poorly Paizo designed recent books like the ACG and Mythic Adventures et al, and how poorly they responded to playtest feedback, I'm not optimistic when the playtest forums tell me how horrible things are.What was wrong with Mythic Adventures? I thought that book was great.
What spellcasters got vs. what martials got, basically. Standard action summons, free spells via Wild Arcana, and so on. Martials got... increased land speed and more bonus to hit, as I recall. At least, those were the ones my PCs liked best. I admit, it's more linked to the old argument that expectations for what high-level casters should be able to do aren't limited by reality while expectations for high-level martials are.
Mythic casters, the stuff of legend, get lots of awesome things. Mythic martials, who have the power of a demigod at their fingertips... can move faster. Specifically, assume a Medium-sized champion with light armor takes Impossible Speed. An increase of 30 feet per round is an increase of about 3.5 mph to about 7 mph. Moving at seven miles per hour is Paizo's idea of what mythic martials should reasonably do, and it's one of the more useful path abilities.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not worry about the bloat of options, but I do worry about the bloat of non-options.
Thins like Canny Tumble, Sure Graps and 90% of all Rogue Talents...
Stuff that is so bad, it doesn't add anything to the game other than page count. It makes Pathfinder far less friendly to new players and doesn't give veterans any real benefit. All it does is force players to filter through the trash to find that one gem hidden beneath the mountains of garbage.
I doubt more than 50% of the spells, feats and archetypes are ever used in any game where the players have the slightest hint of system mastery. And 50% is me being generous.
I am not overly worried about bloat. I guess I am more worried about my available book shelf space.
I'm worried about my wallet.
No, but I am concerned about the quality of the new products. Given how poorly Paizo designed recent books like the ACG and Mythic Adventures et al, and how poorly they responded to playtest feedback, I'm not optimistic when the playtest forums tell me how horrible things are.What was wrong with Mythic Adventures? I thought that book was great.What spellcasters got vs. what martials got, basically. Standard action summons, free spells via Wild Arcana, and so on. Martials got... increased land speed and more bonus to hit, as I recall. At least, those were the ones my PCs liked best. I admit, it's more linked to the old argument that expectations for what high-level casters should be able to do aren't limited by reality while expectations for high-level martials are.
Mythic casters, the stuff of legend, get lots of awesome things. Mythic martials, who have the power of a demigod at their fingertips... can move faster. Specifically, assume a Medium-sized champion with light armor takes Impossible Speed. An increase of 30 feet per round is an increase of about 3.5 mph to about 7 mph. Moving at seven miles per hour is Paizo's idea of what mythic martials should reasonably do, and it's one of the more useful path abilities.
I really liked the Mythic rules and was baffled why many people didn't like them. I do admit it felt like most of the champion's abilities were things a high level martial character should be able to do anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'd much rather them put Occult Adventures on complete hold and focusing on fixing the ACG. On the one hand, I am really not interested in anything I've seen about Occult Adventures, from the classes to the concept of trying to incorporate RL psuedoreligion, charlatans, and the like. I just don't find it appealing.
What might have been cool is a Heroes of Horror style book that focused predominately on introducing options to the existing classes to fit into that theme rather that try to cram even more into what should be a right up that alley already.
We have the Cleric, Oracle, Witch/Shaman,and Inquisitor, do we really need any class that specializes in dealing with spirits as it's main theme, or can we not just get a few Feats or an Archtype or two that does that even better? Do we need a bunch of new classes to introduce psychic magic, cause I can think of a bunch of existing ones that could very easily fit the bill with a few options added in. Some new spells, a few Feats, and some trait options means that the entire book is opened to all the existing material (good) while making a bunch of new material that's mostly exclusive to itself means existing characters probably can't touch it regardless of how much sense it makes or the flavor fits (bad).
Since the ACG came out as poorly done as it was, my trust in Paizo has kind of been shaken, and I do feel the bloat. So yah, I would say we have hit that point.
I really liked the Mythic rules and was baffled why many people didn't like them. I do admit it felt like most of the champion's abilities were things a high level martial character should be able to do anyway.
The problem is that a 20th-level, 10th tier martial is supposed to be 1/4 of an effectively ECL 25 party.
Yet by using even the simplest amount of optimization, he can kill both Pazuzu and Cthulhu (the first time) in one full attack, assuming they're adjacent.
I'm talking over 1500 damage, or over 3000 with foe-biter.
Since all martials do is deal damage, MA amped that up to 11, which is a problem because monster hit points don't scale nearly as well. It becomes rocket tag.
Since the ACG came out as poorly done as it was, my trust in Paizo has kind of been shaken, and I do feel the bloat. So yah, I would say we have hit that point.
While I must admit that I chuckled when I realized my copy of the ACG had "Adventure Path" instead of "Roleplaying Game" on the cover, and there are some typographical errors (most egregious of which is the Earth blessing for the warpriest), and they screwed up Slashing Grace and had to add Fencing Grace to the ACG Origins pamphlet for swashbucklers to use rapiers, ACG could have turned out way, way worse than it did. It's better than the ARG, which gave us the busted race-builder and paragon surge.
So is there something about the ACG that I missed that makes it so bad?
In his words, "The problem with PathFinder is there's too much of it."
Too much? Technically, all you need is the 3 core books and you're set.
Agreed. But, those were his words, not mine. I'm just relaying what one non-Pathfinder player told me. I did give him your exact suggestion :)
|
|
So is there something about the ACG that I missed that makes it so bad?
I don't want to derail this thread as there are plenty of them out there,
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad the people who really wanted a psionics book will get it.
I've given up on trying to keep up with Pathfinder rules, though. There is far too much material for me to keep apprised of.
Now, as far as new classes, this doesn't bother me too much. Unless I want to stat up a Hunter, I don't need to know anything about the hunter spell list, I don't need to know how the companion works, I don't need to know how many skill points it gets. Ignoring those things is not a particularly great burden to me, since I already have druids and rangers.
It is a minor burden in that if I do want to make use of parts of these rules, I cannot rely on familiarity anymore and I have to read up on them as I use them (because there are so many classes and archetypes now that I am no longer familiar with most of them). That hardly ideal, but not the end of the world either.
Similarly, Pathfinder does a great number of one-off subsystems. While they are often complicated, like Words of Power, they rarely get mixed in with any other Pathfinder material, so it is ultimately quite easy to mentally quarantine and ignore whatever subsystems are not featuring in the game at the moment.
One aspect of bloat that is directly problematic for me, though, is the proliferation of spells and feats. Sorting through spells and feats has become very burdensome to me, on a practical level, measured in things like how many much longer it takes to find that feat I can't think of the name of, or greater difficulty than I used to have in creating a character from memory when I am perfectly familiar with the class chassis.
If there was one broad change I'd really like to make Pathfinder as it is now, it would be to delete or consolidate a huge chunk of the feats and spells.
Now, another major area where bloat might happen is in magic items and such. However, accounting and spending wealth for higher level characters has always been a gigantic pain, even when there was just the Core Rulebook. This may have become worse, but it was always really bad anyway, so I can barely tell.
Also, I still seem to get good use out of d20pfsrd's magic items pages, so bloat hasn't been as much of a problem there, whereas I get much less use out of the spells and feats pages than I used to due to the increased sorting and searching required.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.)
What got me into PF were the AP's... what has me reconsidering is the bloat.
Unfortunately I get castigated for even asking about purchasing more AP materials (such as hardcover treatment of the out of print and out dated AP's) while lately the bloat has begun to increase at an exponential rate. It's tough for me and others to hear there is no manpower for updating 3.5 modules while watching Mythic Adventures, the ACG, Occult Adventures, Unchained, etc, etc, etc all coming out back-to-back-to-back with barely a breath taken. Moreover, as these books come out faster and faster their quality suffers, from adequate play testing being done to simple things like typographical errors.
I'm honestly not sure what's driven Paizo to inundate their patrons with inferior quality materials packed to the brim with largely unasked for options. I'd rather that manpower be used to ensure things like the pawns actually include the appropriate characters (no Elyrium?) or the book covers themselves are in error. PFS was a great idea but as the special rules exceptions and addendums start to look more and more like a phone book and potential GMs are stretched thinner and thinner to keep up with all the 'options' they may be faced with, it's going to die of self-immolation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat is subjective. Some will worry. Some won't. I just tell the players they only need the CRB. There is nothing wrong with looking at the other books. It is not like they have to learn every class or rule. Some players have option paralysis, but I think that is the exception rather than the norm.