Pathfinder Bloat - are you concerned?


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 761 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Isn't this the time for our monthly Paladin alignment thread, by the way?

Already in progress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thing is, as has been stated this topic comes up about once a week, or once a new product at the very least. Some people are concerned. Some people are not. If you are concerned, you know how to correct the issue -- don't buy more stuff, change games, reduce your workload, etc.

If you aren't concerned, then you don't really need to do anything.

The question is why we need so many threads counting noses on the same issue over and over again. Are opinions changing in the course of a week or two?

This applies to bloat, alignment, paladins, rogues, fighters, do people use the term strawman too much and so on.

There might ought be a flag for threads called "Too Soon" with a time clock on when we can have another of these delightful threads.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

ahahaha this thread made my d-
oh, sorry, thought this was the one from 2011 about bloat


3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

The question is why we need so many threads counting noses on the same issue over and over again. Are opinions changing in the course of a week or two?

This applies to bloat, alignment, paladins, rogues, fighters, do people use the term strawman too much and so on.

There might ought be a flag for threads called "Too Soon" with a time clock on when we can have another of these delightful threads.

I think those are fair points. I'd imagine that anyone who is concerned about bloat would become even more concern every time something new and major comes out... if that seems to be happening with alarming (or annoying) frequency then perhaps they have a point. If I'm concerned that my child is getting bad grades and I voice that concern but the bad grades continue to come in, do I shrug and say 'well, I addressed that the first time, no point in bringing it up again'?

My question becomes what's the harm in people expressing concern? To paraphrase your post, if you are concerned, all you need to do is express those concerns and if you aren't then all you have to do is nothing, right?

What makes these threads so delightful in my opinion is somebody says 'These are the things about the game I love that I'm concerned about' and then immediately the pathological defenders line up and explain in (exhaustive) detail how they're wrong/stupid/pushing an agenda for having and especially for daring to voice that concern. I imagine these forums were constructed in large part to elicit feedback from Paizo's most active and loyal fans, and I've yet to see any criteria mandating that such feedback can only be offered in glowing terms.

People have their concerns. They have a right to express them. This is the appropriate forum to do it. I've never met a soul who was forced to click, read and then respond (repeatedly) to a thread against their will, so what exactly is the harm?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:
People have their concerns. They have a right to express them. This is the appropriate forum to do it. I've never met a soul who was forced to click, read and then respond (repeatedly) to a thread against their will.

This is also a point that has been repeated endlessly on the forums.


People have their concerns and are welcome to express them. That said, when they express the same concerns over and over and over and over and .. well, you get the point. It becomes less about the concerns and more about the same people have the same engagements. In fact, they battles tend not to be about whatever the current conversation is, but about something that went on six threads back (looks at this thread, in fact.)

Your rebuttal seems to be "I can express my concerns if I want to, so there!" And you can. But you see, this is why these threads get the blow back they do. It becomes the same people on the same sides saying the same thing. There are few solutions offered, it's just a Groundhog's Day of arguments playing out again and again.

To go back to your example, if you address the problem with the teacher over and over, they start to feel harassed. If you haven't given the teacher time to address the problem and/or your child time to correct the problem, further beating that horse gets you very little.

Same goes with continuing to hammer at Paizo that they are making too many things or you perceive bloat. They heard you (the universal you) the first hundred times. Unless and until someone addresses how they feed their families without selling product, your words are going to have a lot less meaning.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
People have their concerns. They have a right to express them. This is the appropriate forum to do it. I've never met a soul who was forced to click, read and then respond (repeatedly) to a thread against their will.
This is also a point that has been repeated endlessly on the forums.

I'd like to see stats and a measurement as to what that "point" might be, as opposed to someone's subjective opinion of what that is. (No, I don't really... I just don't care about people's subjective opinion about when to cease discussion of something!)


What concerns me is the Paizo staff no longer seems to be able to play test all the combinations and hence broken rules from pairings are now a regular thing. I notice this mostly with Archetypes, it seems the play test works well for the new classes but as soon as they add the archetypes combinations are created that break the game and hence for the first time ever in my home group we ban lots of things. Every new feat, class, spell, and magic item has to be considered if it allowed and for me that is no fun and a royal pain in the A$$. Sometimes I have to reverse decisions based on them breaking later in a campaign,

I'm used to allowing everything written in the rules by the core company (in this case Paizo) to get it right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:

What concerns me is the Paizo staff no longer seems to be able to play test all the combinations and hence broken rules from pairings are now a regular thing. I notice this mostly with Archetypes, it seems the play test works well for the new classes but as soon as they add the archetypes combinations are created that break the game and hence for the first time ever in my home group we ban lots of things. Every new feat, class, spell, and magic item has to be considered if it allowed and for me that is no fun and a royal pain in the A$$. Sometimes I have to reverse decisions based on them breaking later in a campaign,

I'm used to allowing everything written in the rules by the core company (in this case Paizo) to get it right.

Please name an archetype combination more powerful than core only wizard.

Shadow Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
Pathfinder does not revolve around PFS.

It sometimes does a remarkable job of pretending to.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
And, predictably, legitimate discussion is silenced with hyperbole, strawman arguments, misdirection and name-calling... the true agendas are suddenly offered in stark relief, and by names that would surprise no one.

One of the favored tactics of the PDF.

Wiggz wrote:
If I was on some kind of personal warpath against Paizo, would I really be 1) a member of the PFS, 2) a subscriber for their products, 3) spending time in other threads helping people improve the Pathfinder experience and 4) voicing both my concerns about the company and my desire to buy additional products, if only they'd produce them?

Exactly. I like Paizo. Admittedly, I like them much more for their adventures and their setting than for their (in my opinion) increasingly unstable system....but I do like them. I want to see them succeed. Which is why I have criticism for them. If I truly hated everything that Paizo put out, then I'd not bother to discuss/criticize it at all. That's something that the PDF doesn't seem to comprehend.

Shadow Lodge

Claxon wrote:

Options are fine, but too many options is bad. Especially when those new options invalidate old ones. Not just from an optimization stand point, but why would you ever play a rogue when you could play a ninja, slayer, or investigator and be more competent at anything the rogue can do.

It's also a problem when options are just too powerful compared to old options. Remember Sacred Geometry? Or the feat that gave (most) divine caster charisma to saves?

I'd say that options that are underpowered are just as much (or perhaps even more so) bloat as overpowered options. An option that nobody will seriously consider is perhaps the worst kind of bloat, it's not really adding anything to the game, it's just adding to page count.

Except they sometimes go for the route of making the underpowered option a pre-requisite to something that someone might actually want. Which is even worse...it's pretty much spitting in the face of that player.

Ironically, almost all of these underpowered prerequisites are for martial characters...spellcasters have very few feat taxes or the equivalent. Which only exacerbates the whole spellcaster vs martial imbalance even further. And the worst part is that Paizo doesn't seem to give a damn...they continue to follow that design paradigm...despite the imbalance, spellcasters have free choice to grab any of their overpowered options, while martials have to wade through a bunch of sub-optimal prerequisites in order to take their best (ie, somewhat viable) options.


Kthulhu wrote:
Exactly. I like Paizo. Admittedly, I like them much more for their adventures and their setting than for their (in my opinion) increasingly unstable system....but I do like them. I want to see them succeed. Which is why I have criticism for them. If I truly hated everything that Paizo put out, then I'd not bother to discuss/criticize it at all. That's something that the PDF doesn't seem to comprehend.

Perfectly stated. Thank you.

I find that most people default to their own natures when judging those they do not know - an honest person tends to assume people are honest, a dishonest one the reverse, etc. When someone comes out of the blue telling me that I have some sort of ulterior agenda, pronounces that I'm posting only to badger or belittle something I hate (despite all evidence to the contrary) or chastises me for engaging in behavior they actually attribute to someone else, I often find that very revealing.

I'll line up for their AP's from now til doomsday... I just worry that the system itself - as you so eloquently stated - is hastening that doomsday through growing instability, expanding beyond Paizo's ability to adequately playtest (Mythic, anyone?) or balance its ruleset.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Ironically, almost all of these underpowered prerequisites are for martial characters...spellcasters have very few feat taxes or the equivalent. Which only exacerbates the whole spellcaster vs martial imbalance even further. And the worst part is that Paizo doesn't seem to give a damn...they continue to follow that design paradigm...despite the imbalance, spellcasters have free choice to grab any of their overpowered options, while martials have to wade through a bunch of sub-optimal prerequisites in order to take their best (ie, somewhat viable) options.

Careful, you're pushing the martial-caster disparity agenda!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not as much as Paizo is.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

23 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


Ironically, almost all of these underpowered prerequisites are for martial characters...spellcasters have very few feat taxes or the equivalent. Which only exacerbates the whole spellcaster vs martial imbalance even further. And the worst part is that Paizo doesn't seem to give a damn...they continue to follow that design paradigm...despite the imbalance, spellcasters have free choice to grab any of their overpowered options, while martials have to wade through a bunch of sub-optimal prerequisites in order to take their best (ie, somewhat viable) options.

If you like us so much, maybe turn down the hyperbole a little?

I mean, seriously. We're making a whole book called Pathfinder Unchained to re-address core elements of the system that people don't like. Included in that effort are redesigned rogue, monk, and barbarian classes, all of which will significantly amp up those martial classes.

I'm not certain it'll be to your liking, and I'm not certain we'll do a perfect job.

I am certain that spending a quarter of a million dollars to print and a third of our hardcover release schedule to address some of these issues registers somewhere north of "Paizo doesn't seem to give a damn."

Criticism is fine. Criticism is good. Criticism is welcome.

But I do recommend occasionally tempering that criticism with good faith.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
And, predictably, legitimate discussion is silenced with hyperbole, strawman arguments, misdirection and name-calling... the true agendas are suddenly offered in stark relief, and by names that would surprise no one.
One of the favored tactics of the PDF.

I don't think of myself as the PDF. Maybe the Word .. oh, you mean Paizo Defense Force? I'm not that either. Like Paizo, don't like Paizo. I don't really care. What it appeared from the back and forth is that there is some bad blood from other threads.

Wiggz wrote:
If I was on some kind of personal warpath against Paizo, would I really be 1) a member of the PFS, 2) a subscriber for their products, 3) spending time in other threads helping people improve the Pathfinder experience and 4) voicing both my concerns about the company and my desire to buy additional products, if only they'd produce them?
Kthulhu wrote:
Exactly. I like Paizo. Admittedly, I like them much more for their adventures and their setting than for their (in my opinion) increasingly unstable system....but I do like them. I want to see them succeed. Which is why I have criticism for them. If I truly hated everything that Paizo put out, then I'd not bother to discuss/criticize it at all. That's something that the PDF doesn't seem to comprehend.

This is all really cool. But can we have one big thread called "This is why I don't like Paizo" or something instead of every third thread being a clone of each other?

Ever go to Youtube and watch a video and look at the comments? For the vast number of songs I pick, usually of classic rock, there is a raging debate about why this music is better than Bieber, folled by nuh uh then uh huh then 500 posts of badly spelled profanity.

It gets like that in these threads. X doesn't like Y and they bicker in every thread they are in. That is what I am against.

I am not against the universal you disliking Paizo or only liking X and not Y. I am against a perfectly fine thread being derailed by someone bringing in a fight from another thread (see also: monk, rogue, fighter, crossbow. etc.) This is why I say make one giant free for all thread if we cannot keep things in, you know, separate threads.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

you magnificent bastard, you
but please erik mona
do not gaze long into this abyss


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
do not gaze long into this abyss

I should cover up, it's true.

Shadow Lodge

I have good faith in the adventures and the setting coming out of Paizo.

To be honest, I don't really think I have any faith anymore in the rules coming out of Paizo.

I hope Pathfinder Unchained addresses some of my concerns. But I think it's destined to be the Unearthed Arcana of Pathfinder...a book that is known about, and occasionally referenced, but hardly ever used extensively.

I'm hopeful...but I can't claim to be faithful.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

All I'm asking for is that you not act like a jerk.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, Unearthed Arcana didn't have alternative versions of classes. It's certainly my hope that these classes appear in PFS and in future books, if the authors of an adventure would prefer to use them over their Core equivalents.

Yes, it could turn out to be a book of options most people don't use. I hope that doesn't happen, and plan to do whatever I can to help the book avoid that fate.


Erik Mona wrote:

Also, Unearthed Arcana didn't have alternative versions of classes. It's certainly my hope that these classes appear in PFS and in future books, if the authors of an adventure would prefer to use them over their Core equivalents.

Yes, it could turn out to be a book of options most people don't use. I hope that doesn't happen, and plan to do whatever I can to help the book avoid that fate.

Just to clarify - once Unchained is released there will be two separate, legal versions of the Fighter (and Monk, Rogue, etc.), each with its own attendant archetypes?


Kthulhu wrote:

I have good faith in the adventures and the setting coming out of Paizo.

To be honest, I don't really think I have any faith anymore in the rules coming out of Paizo.

I hope Pathfinder Unchained addresses some of my concerns. But I think it's destined to be the Unearthed Arcana of Pathfinder...a book that is known about, and occasionally referenced, but hardly ever used extensively.

I'm hopeful...but I can't claim to be faithful.

There is a stark contrast between constructive criticism, and outright trashing or the other extreme unwavering praise.

I'm guilty of my own criticisms, it's pretty soul destroying stuff, as there are many people at Paizo I do respect and admire for past works (like Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, CRB, APG), Erik Mona being one of them.

Check out the Occult Adventures Playtest (Kineticist class). Mark Seitzer is a hard working, talented designer, and the results so far proves it. Occult Adventures is shaping up to be something special.

Mark is also working on Pathfinder Unchained. These new rulebooks are in good hands.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I'm sorry that we've done this "oh no teh bloat" song and dance so many times that the actors are recognizable. Put this up there with monday monkday, rollplay vs teaparty debates, and caster supremacy arguments as something that happens every single week on these forums. Nothing is accomplished, no one is convinced of anything, and the people whining on both sides are the same every single time.

So, I came to post specific feedback on the ways in which bloat has become a problem for me, the areas in which it is just a minor issue, the areas in which it is not a problem at all despite lots of published material, and why, in all cases.

Did I come to the wrong thread, or what?

(I also don't think I've posted any of that before).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Bloat" is such a subjective term.

Unless your group requires the presence of all options simultaneously at equal frequency in the setting, it's usually a fairly simple matter to negotiate: certain classes/archetypes restricted to specific areas, backgrounds, or organizations; the PCs are the only instances of "non-standard" classes in living memory; the classes available (to include specific archetypes) are based on their cosmological or thematic "fit" with a particular setting (for instance, limiting divine casters to spontaneous choices and arcane spellcasters to prepared choices; or vice versa)*; etc. Especially since the majority of the information is readily available in the PRD.

When it's not a fairly simple matter to negotiate, that's almost always an issue of personality conflict, rather than any inherent "flaw" in the availability of "too much" material.

*- hunter, inquisitor, or oracle for divine and alchemist, arcanist, investigator, magus, witch, or wizard for arcane; alternately cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, shaman, or warpriest for divine and bard, bloodrager, skald, sorcerer, or summoner for arcane

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

Wiggz wrote:


Just to clarify - once Unchained is released there will be two separate, legal versions of the Fighter (and Monk, Rogue, etc.), each with its own attendant archetypes?

"In existence," yes. If/when we refer to the Unchained monk, for example, we'll call it an unchained monk in the stat block.

It remains to be seen how these classes will be implemented in PFS. It's too early to make those decisions, but it's certainly my hope and expectation that players will be able to choose one version or the other.


Erik Mona wrote:
Wiggz wrote:


Just to clarify - once Unchained is released there will be two separate, legal versions of the Fighter (and Monk, Rogue, etc.), each with its own attendant archetypes?

"In existence," yes. If/when we refer to the Unchained monk, for example, we'll call it an unchained monk in the stat block.

It remains to be seen how these classes will be implemented in PFS. It's too early to make those decisions, but it's certainly my hope and expectation that players will be able to choose one version or the other.

Personally, I'd be cool with them being considered Alternate Classes in the same way the Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin are the Alt Classes of the Rogue, Cavalier, and Paladin. It seems like the easiest way to do it.


I'm just worried that the unchained classes will completely eclipse and replace the core classes. If that ends up to be the case, why bother with them as an option, why not errata the core book to fix the classes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
I'm just worried that the unchained classes will completely eclipse and replace the core classes. If that ends up to be the case, why bother with them as an option, why not errata the core book to fix the classes?

I expect they will for some people - those people who have serious problems with the monk, barbarian and rogue classes. I expect they won't for people who who find those classes ok. There seem to be a lot of people on each side.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'm just worried that the unchained classes will completely eclipse and replace the core classes. If that ends up to be the case, why bother with them as an option, why not errata the core book to fix the classes?
I expect they will for some people - those people who have serious problems with the monk, barbarian and rogue classes. I expect they won't for people who who find those classes ok. There seem to be a lot of people on each side.

I guess to me, its like archetypes which are now full classes in the ACG. Why take an archetype when you can take a full class instead?


Tarantula wrote:
I'm just worried that the unchained classes will completely eclipse and replace the core classes. If that ends up to be the case, why bother with them as an option, why not errata the core book to fix the classes?

I mean, hasn't that already happened with some of the Archetypes being "just better" than the original classes? And yet people still continue to play the base classes, or at least not those "just better" archetypes.

In my experience, very few people actually play the base classes - nearly everyone uses an Archetype.

The Classes are there to give you a basic architecture to work from, but it's Archetypes that're where the real character building comes in.

That's why there's so much emphasis on the basic Class designs: once you have the chassis, it's easy to make modifications in the way of Archetypes without having to worry about really breaking anything.

That's also why the 19 base classes worked so well for so long - you had 19 radically different basic designs (which, ironically, are best described as "archetypes"), and Archetypes were specific modifications which branched from the basic designs.

Hybrid Classes kind of broke from this mold, but that's the whole point of them being "hybrid classes". Even then, these classes did a pretty darn good job at being very distinct from their Parent classes, even if there were thematic similarities.

The Occult classes right now seem to all be working on a general Urban/Gothic Fantasy feel not unlike pulp fantasy stories from Victorian Britain to 1920s radio shows like The Shadow, and as such are apparently attempting to take a major departure from the "high adventure/fantasy" classes that've been the norm up to now.

HOW successful that will be remains to be seen, but a few of the classes do seem to be thoroughly unique, while others are more-obviously ports of already-existing classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I will say is that, personally, I loved that Paizo had only 19 classes and a slew of Archetypes.

This was a warmly-welcomed departure from the "Here's a new base class for every possible build!" model that Wizards of the Coast started in 3.5 and then took to town in 4E.

I was worried that the Hybrid classes would begin a slippery slope towards this, but when I saw those 10 classes in print, I was happy to learn that, while some classes' roles and mechanics DO overlap with the "core 19" classes of Pathfinder, they are still fairly different.

After Occult Adventures, though, I do hope that there'll be another long lull before more new classes show up.

Or at most introduce maybe one new Hybrid class every so often (I'd personally love to see a Divine Rager, since the Rage Prophet is cool, but a Bloodrager-style full class would be fantastic).

Archetypes are awesome because they allow for new content to be introduced at regular intervals, without having to both create and learn entirely new classes.

I'd rather have an archetype come out for a class I already know than a totally new 20-level class that's only a slight deviation from that class.


Bruunwald wrote:

This question comes up everytime a new book is released or announced. The answer to your concerns will always be the same:

"Nobody will ever force you to use a book you do not want to use in your game. Ignore new books at your leisure."

My concern as a player is kind of the opposite. With one newly released book with classes (ACG), it might have been possible to convince the GM to let me run one of them. But with two? Much less chance.

On the other hand, the occult book is clearly further outside the standard kitchen sink fantasy, so the chance wasn't good even if there hadn't been an ACG. The ACG classes, on the other hand, probably got harder to convince my GM to let me play.

What these classes do is update the game to a more modern feel - steampunk in the case of the ACG, modern/urban fantasy (as a genre) and steampunk (as a period) in the case of occult adventures. This is a migration in environment that both fantasy literature and gaming has been going for years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'm just worried that the unchained classes will completely eclipse and replace the core classes. If that ends up to be the case, why bother with them as an option, why not errata the core book to fix the classes?
I expect they will for some people - those people who have serious problems with the monk, barbarian and rogue classes. I expect they won't for people who who find those classes ok. There seem to be a lot of people on each side.
I guess to me, its like archetypes which are now full classes in the ACG. Why take an archetype when you can take a full class instead?

While some are Archetypes-made-classes (like the Brawler, which really is just the Brawler Fighter Archetype), I've felt more of them are Prestige Classes made into Base Classes.

I fully support this, by the way, as I've never been a fan of Prestige Classes. Dipping into, or even just entering, PrCs is just painful and requires lots of prep-work. They're great ways to keep advancing with a design beyond CL20, but unless the class is really awe-inspiring I'd rather stick to single or multiclassing straight.

It's nice to be able to jump right into playing a Swashbuckler instead of having to wait to be a Duelist, or a Slayer instead of the Assassin. Then again, they haven't completely replaced those prestige classes, and you can still enter them the old fashioned way.

There are still legit reasons to play a Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, for example, but it's nice to know an alternate route to a similar end is a straight Bloodrager (and a Bloodrager/Dragon Discple is a really easy way to go from lv1-30 without ever having to "leave" your class). It's why I hope there'll eventually be a Divine 'Rager class, or at least Archetype for the Bloodrager, because I love the idea of the Rage Prophet, but not the execution as much.


Wiggz wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Noboby said a purchase of hardback would drop AP sales.
Um... actually, LOTS of people have said that. Its the entire basis of their argument.

Then they misread Paizo's statement.


Wiggz wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

One note: All the people talking about how you don't have to choose to use all the books are wrong for a subset of Pathfinder games: Pathfinder Society games pretty much use every hardcover in the RPG line...as well as a large number of books from the Campaign Setting and Player Companion lines as well. While players can get away with just being familiar with he actual resources they use for their PC, Game Masters need at least a passing familiarity with ALL of it.

One of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of PFS.

Then we were not wrong because we were making general cases, and Pathfinder does not revolve around PFS. If those in PFS dont like all of the books being availible then address it with PFS, and try to lessen the option instead of complaining as if a PFS problem is a Pathfinder problem.
Heh - tell that to Crane Wing.

I still see that as a corner case, and not even the sole reason, so it is still not the standard.


Claxon wrote:

Options are fine, but too many options is bad. Especially when those new options invalidate old ones. Not just from an optimization stand point, but why would you ever play a rogue when you could play a ninja, slayer, or investigator and be more competent at anything the rogue can do.

It's also a problem when options are just too powerful compared to old options. Remember Sacred Geometry? Or the feat that gave (most) divine caster charisma to saves?

If Sacred Geometry is that over complicated feat I think that alone will shut it down. Ain't nobody got time for that.

The problem with "too many" is that it will vary by who you ask.

As for old options being invalidated not all options are good or even valid ones, and some people do still play rogues because they think you must/should choose the class that matches the flavor written by Paizo instead of choosing the class that best fits the concept.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There are things I don't like such as "Words of Power". However I wont go out of my way to try to stop Paizo from making more Words of Powers content. Yeah it might delay something I want, but the game is not just created for my table or my style of play. If someone else gets something that I don't care about I can live with it. I really don't see the point of "I don't like it, so it should not exist".


wraithstrike wrote:
There are things I don't like such as "Words of Power". However I wont go out of my way to try to stop Paizo from making more Words of Powers content. Yeah it might delay something I want, but the game is not just created for my table or my style of play. If someone else gets something that I don't care about I can live with it. I really don't see the point of "I don't like it, so it should not exist".

Stop Paizo from making something? huh.

Delaying something you want? Companies will make the products they want to make and deliver them to the public when they want to. This is not a case of delivery delays. One would hope that companies don't pander to overzealous fans: the dark side of consumer power.

There isn't any single Pathfinder enthusiast who can sabotage or directly influence Paizo's design decisions.

Yes there is customer feedback and it's not all derived from these forums. There are independent book reviews, peer reviews, indicator by sales etc.

To think otherwise is a severely disproportionate sense of Self Entitlement.

You don't own Pathfinder, and neither do I.

Right or wrong, people are allowed to voice their opinions. Without the need to answer to a self proclaimed higher authority.

It's just a discussion, nothing more.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

While some are Archetypes-made-classes (like the Brawler, which really is just the Brawler Fighter Archetype), I've felt more of them are Prestige Classes made into Base Classes.

I fully support this, by the way, as I've never been a fan of Prestige Classes. Dipping into, or even just entering, PrCs is just painful and requires lots of prep-work. They're great ways to keep advancing with a design beyond CL20, but unless the class is really awe-inspiring I'd rather stick to single or multiclassing straight.

It's nice to be able to jump right into playing a Swashbuckler instead of having to wait to be a Duelist, or a Slayer instead of the Assassin. Then again, they haven't completely replaced those prestige classes, and you can still enter them the old fashioned way.

There are still legit reasons to play a Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, for example, but it's nice to know an alternate route to a similar end is a straight Bloodrager (and a Bloodrager/Dragon Discple is a really easy way to go from lv1-30 without ever having to "leave" your class). It's why I hope there'll eventually be a Divine 'Rager class, or at least Archetype for the Bloodrager, because I love the idea of the Rage Prophet, but not the execution as much.

While I loved mix/matching classes and prestige classes in 3.5, I was very glad when pathfinder made single class a viable option again.

That said, if the unchained rogue is head and shoulders better than the core rogue, then why would anyone play a core rogue? I don't see why someone would pick the core rogue over the unchained rogue. And if that's the case, why not just errata the core rogue into the unchained rogue?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
That said, if the unchained rogue is head and shoulders better than the core rogue, then why would anyone play a core rogue? I don't see why someone would pick the core rogue over the unchained rogue.

Regardless, there will be people who do. Even if we don't understand why they do, Paizo will want to leave them the option.

151 to 200 of 761 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.