| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never had a problem with the Rogue. Then again, when I play, it's with my group that I typically DM, and we all prefer old-style dungeons and modules from back during the gygax era.
That means being a skill-monkey and using teamwork over solo'ing, and very, very, horrendously long dungeons where the Bard can't really supercede the Rogue for longer than maybe 20 minutes at a time, when it'll take the better part of 8 hours a day to get through a good chunk of a dungeon, and probably take 2 or more days to complete, if THAT short an amount of time, really.
The Monk does need some love as a base class, but the Rogue only really has a problem in PFS, where the dungeons are miniscule and the sessions are short (4 hours? That's a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am in-and-out session for older groups - try 8+; now THAT is a gaming session).
Still, yeah, welcome to D&D - creating nerd-rage arguments about how every new piece of data has RUINED THE GAME FOR-E-VAR! since 1979.
Also, welcome to the Internet - enabling massive nerd-rage arguments about D&D and how new pieces of data have RUINED THE GAME FOR-E-VAR! since 1995.
I think there needs to be an expansion of what skills can do out of the gate. Say some sort of unlocks for reaching certain rank thresholds. Also spellcasting should have more skills required to help prevent bards taking over rogue jobs. Say you have a dispel/counterspelling skill, a scrying/general divination skill, and spellcraft checks determine how fine of control you have over things like area of effect and range of your spell.
Also, Unearthed Arcana didn't have alternative versions of classes.
Um, yes it did? It was in pages 47-78.
And while we are on the subject of constructive criticism...
honesty. It's important. I cannot think of many companies which are entirely honest in their marketing. Misleading advertisements are the norm. That being said, what you just wrote goes beyond misleading and into the territory of blatant falsehood. A falsehood which is very easy to check, given that most of UA is open gaming content. Which leads to one of two conclusions: either
(a)You were being careless, and made a statement about your competitor's product without taking 10 seconds to check whether it was accurate, or
(b)You knew UA has alternate classes in it, but were willing to lie about your competitor's product.I really hope it's (a). Given that the editing process for the typical forum post is rather sparse (or nonexistent), (a) seems plausible.
But, Paizo is a company from which I receive information almost exclusively through the internet. If I cannot trust what you and your company say on the internet, that cuts off your main line of communication to me. Dishonesty through carelessness (as in scenario (a)) is just as misleading as dishonesty through lies.
mountain/molehill
|
Also, Unearthed Arcana didn't have alternative versions of classes.
Um, yes it did? It was in pages 47-78.
And while we are on the subject of constructive criticism...
honesty. It's important. I cannot think of many companies which are entirely honest in their marketing. Misleading advertisements are the norm. That being said, what you just wrote goes beyond misleading and into the territory of blatant falsehood. A falsehood which is very easy to check, given that most of UA is open gaming content. Which leads to one of two conclusions: either
(a)You were being careless, and made a statement about your competitor's product without taking 10 seconds to check whether it was accurate, or
(b)You knew UA has alternate classes in it, but were willing to lie about your competitor's product.I really hope it's (a). Given that the editing process for the typical forum post is rather sparse (or nonexistent), (a) seems plausible.
But, Paizo is a company from which I receive information almost exclusively through the internet. If I cannot trust what you and your company say on the internet, that cuts off your main line of communication to me. Dishonesty through carelessness (as in scenario (a)) is just as misleading as dishonesty through lies.
In his defense, he could have been thinking of the 1st edition UA (although that had revised versions of the ranger and the druid).
I also doubt he has the contents of either book memorized, or that he double checks facts before every message boards post he makes.
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.
I never said they could actually stop them. You clearly missed the point.
Honestly, this conversation needs to be had in the context of pfs. There it is definately an issue, because individuals dont have a say over what is or isnt in their game. Lets divide those two things because pfs is not the same thing as general pathfinder. It has it's own set of rules for a reason. It is entirely reasonable for it to have something to deal with the issue of an over abundance of potentially used rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, this conversation needs to be had in the context of pfs. There it is definately an issue, because individuals dont have a say over what is or isnt in their game.
That's why PFS isn't for everyone. If you can't deal with the stated assumptions, you don't play it. So discussing this in the context of PFS doesn't really make a difference.
You aren't required to play PFS. You aren't required to use all the content in your home games.
There is certainly cause to discuss what is and isn't allowed in PFS, but that's not the discussion taking place here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, this conversation needs to be had in the context of pfs. There it is definately an issue, because individuals dont have a say over what is or isnt in their game.That's why PFS isn't for everyone. If you can't deal with the stated assumptions, you don't play it. So discussing this in the context of PFS doesn't really make a difference.
You aren't required to play PFS. You aren't required to use all the content in your home games.
There is certainly cause to discuss what is and isn't allowed in PFS, but that's not the discussion taking place here.
I havent read the entire thread, but I count at least a dozen references to pfs specifically. My point is that the two conversations really should be explicately different. What should exist for the game itself, and what should be worked into a specific kind of gaming with its own specific rules to allow for organized play.
Honestly, this conversation needs to be had in the context of pfs. There it is definately an issue, because individuals dont have a say over what is or isnt in their game. Lets divide those two things because pfs is not the same thing as general pathfinder. It has it's own set of rules for a reason. It is entirely reasonable for it to have something to deal with the issue of an over abundance of potentially used rules.
That really is the whole argument, and why it's annoying to hear speak of "bloat" - people who say "Pathfinder has bloat!" aren't talking about what most home players would call "Pathfinder" (the 15 PRD Big Books); they're talking about Pathfinder Society, which, by its nature, WOULD and DOES have books upon books.
The best thing I can think of is for Pathfinder Society to adopt a rotating format the way Magic the Gathering does:
You're allowed access to all the PRD material (except the few banned things like Vivisectionist), as well as material currently covered by the Setting and Adventure Paths.
---
That kinda kills the whole flavor of, say, an adventurer from one continent being in the Society and thus travelling to a completely different continent like Numeria, but it would solve some "bloat" issues.
I dunno, I kinda feel like Pathfinder Society can't be "fixed" because it's a gigantic Kitchen Sink World where nearly every fantastic genre interacts with every other fantastic genre. It's part of its strengths but also part of its weaknesses.
There's a reason my play group sticks to "PRD Only": 7 player-based books (CRB, APG, ARG, ACG, UM, UC, UE), 3 GM-only books (GMG, UCmp, MA), and 6 Enemies/NPCs books (Bestiary I-IV, NPC Codex, Monster Codex) are more than enough to create a very extensive world in any setting, featuring nearly any genre, with some room to leave stuff out (mostly the player options from Mythic Adventures).
And yet, to me, one of the draws of PFS is that I can try out these neat classes that home GMs don't want to touch. Gunslinger was a great example. My GM hates the idea of guns in his fantasy, so they do not exist, full stop, do not pass go. At least with PFS I can play a gunslinger and try out some of this material I otherwise can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, to me, one of the draws of PFS is that I can try out these neat classes that home GMs don't want to touch. Gunslinger was a great example. My GM hates the idea of guns in his fantasy, so they do not exist, full stop, do not pass go. At least with PFS I can play a gunslinger and try out some of this material I otherwise can't.
I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying the challenge is a different one then a home game, and needs to be a different discussion.
I have no dog in that fight myself, and honestly dont care the end result. But it simply is a different situation then a static home game, with a set number of characters, and the ability to discuss amongst your group (or have the gm decide) what is in and what is out. If there are 50 classes, but the players only pick 5 of them. Then all you have to deal with is those 5 classes. In pfs, week in and week out you could see any of them, same with feats, spells, and any other option. Home games is a finite sample set. PFS isnt.
Speaking of rolling format something that this supposed bloat has made easier for me is removing problem classes from the game. While it would be unreasonable to say have no arcane casters in the game because they are a staple of the genre, it is now perfectly reasonable to ban wizard, sorcerer, and aracanist if you can replace them with occultist, blood rager, and mesmerist. Though for me personally there is also the dread necromancer and warmage from 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of rolling format something that this supposed bloat has made easier for me is removing problem classes from the game. While it would be unreasonable to say have no arcane casters in the game because they are a staple of the genre, it is now perfectly reasonable to ban wizard, sorcerer, and aracanist if you can replace them with occultist, blood rager, and mesmerist. Though for me personally there is also the dread necromancer and warmage from 3.5.
Indeed more choices can provide groups or gms with that option. For instance, I generally discourage the use of the base rogue in my game. Based on concept I recommend instead one of a number of different 'rogueish' classes (ninja, slayer, swashbuckler, investigator etc).
I've only been GMing Pathfinder for the past year, and in that time the number of new classes, feats, archetypes, etc., has grown, and my group keeps latching onto something I have never heard of and wanting to use it. I wanted to do CRB, but there are things in the newer books that I like (as well as things I don't), and I don't feel I have a good enough handle on them to rule "yay" or "nay" so I tend to allow them. But it does leave me feeling more and more overwhelmed.
That said, I like all the options because - to me - it suggests that the various classes and archetypes are models, templates, ideas that have been broken down into their mechanics for the system. Some good, some great, some not at all playable even if the idea is a cool one.
I'd love for Pathfinder to evolve to the point where they say: "Here - take these and run with them! Create your own "classes", using these as templates, "buy" feats and abilities that fit your character concept, but (and here's the tricky part) in a manner that is balanced so that everyone, Player and GM alike, can have fun!" This is what I am waiting for - the freedom to take all these pieces and play them in a system designed to use them.
As it is, I home brew at least 50% of the rules because I want to adapt it to my campaign and the cannon PF rules just don't work, or are problematic, unclear, etc. I'd love to have them acknowledge this and redesign the system to allow for as much customization as the GM desires, as well as the Player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love for Pathfinder to evolve to the point where they say: "Here - take these and run with them! Create your own "classes", using these as templates, "buy" feats and abilities that fit your character concept, but (and here's the tricky part) in a manner that is balanced so that everyone, Player and GM alike, can have fun!" This is what I am waiting for - the freedom to take all these pieces and play them in a system designed to use them.
So GURPS then?
I do understand people being concerned with "bloat" - 2nd Edition killed TSR, and a major issue with that was the CEO of TSR at the time forcing the designers to churn out mountains of books left and right.
3rd Edition and 3.5, while not causing the downfall of WOTC in the least, had even WORSE issues of having roomfuls of thick books, and a lot of the material contained within was either horrendously underpowered or absurdly overpowered, and the level of playtesting was seemingly next-to nonexistent.
That being said, Paizo is still WAY behind WOTC in terms of big-book-bloat.
After 5 years, WOTC had nearly 50 books for generic 3.5, with over 50 base classes, over 200 prestige classes, and only 5 "modules" - which really weren't even modules, honestly.
In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.
There're also tons and tons of Adventure Paths, and Modules, which is a welcome return to the glory-days of 1st Ed AD&D.
---
Yes, there are dozens on dozens of Campaign Setting materials and Player's Companions, but they're generally small softcovers, and they're all focused on Golarion - you don't need any of them to effectively run your own campaign world, or you can just pick up a handful to run a campaign within any of the nations of Golarion.
The PRD is the heart and backbone of Pathfinder, and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30. Everything else is just very-optional add-ons.
I'd love for Pathfinder to evolve to the point where they say: "Here - take these and run with them! Create your own "classes", using these as templates, "buy" feats and abilities that fit your character concept, but (and here's the tricky part) in a manner that is balanced so that everyone, Player and GM alike, can have fun!" This is what I am waiting for - the freedom to take all these pieces and play them in a system designed to use them.So GURPS then?
Hey, it's a thing. Just skip the magic section and use the regular and/or supers rules for magic and you're golden--if you can get everyone finished with character creation, anyway.
In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.
Woah, 86 prestige classes?
I get 10 from core.and 8 from APG. What am I missing?
Also, I only counted 31 base classes
11 core
6 apg
1 UM
3 UC
10 ACG
So GURPS then?
(spreads salt in a circle, throws parsely, sage, rosemary, and thyme about, and splashes holy water everywhere)
We shall not speak of that system here...
Seriously, while I like the idea of GURPS for being a "universal" system roleplaying system, I've tried it a few times, and it's just... you can't really create a true "universal" system for any game without simultaneously oversimplifying AND overcomplicating things. There's a lot more "roleplay" and a lot less "game," and I side way more with Gygax - a "game" should have plenty of rules (rolling or otherwise), and "roleplay" is the job of the players, not the designers.
Plus, a "classless" or "level-less" system means you have to have a LOT of skills and ability trees to supplement the lack of class-granted things, and that's generally a bookkeeping nightmare unless you have a computer to help (which is why the Elder Scrolls works well - it's a computer game that keeps track of all that bookkeeping FOR you).
[...] if you can get everyone finished with character creation, anyway.
Yes, this - exactly.
In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.Woah, 86 prestige classes?
I get 10 from core.
and 8 from APG. What am I missing?Also, I only counted 31 base classes
11 core
6 apg
1 UM
3 UC
10 ACG
You forgot the Antipaladin.
You forgot the Antipaladin.In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.Woah, 86 prestige classes?
I get 10 from core.
and 8 from APG. What am I missing?Also, I only counted 31 base classes
11 core
6 apg
1 UM
3 UC
10 ACG
"The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right."
Its not a base class, but an alternate for paladin.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizoWoah, 86 prestige classes?
I get 10 from core.
and 8 from APG. What am I missing?
I thought he was saying in the 15 big books there was 32 base classes and 86 prestige ones.
Its not a base class, but an alternate for paladin.Then you can't count the ninja and samurai.
Great! Down to 29 base classes!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, Paizo is still WAY behind WOTC in terms of big-book-bloat.
Separating out "big-books" is an artificial (and probably unhelpful) distinction, AFAIC.
and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30.
Arguable. I, for one, don't think this is even remotely true.
That being said, Paizo is still WAY behind WOTC in terms of big-book-bloat.Separating out "big-books" is an artificial (and probably unhelpful) distinction, AFAIC.
and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30.Arguable. I, for one, don't think this is even remotely true.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.
however wrong it may be.
Give me a break, dude.
The PRD is the heart and backbone of Pathfinder, and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30. Everything else is just very-optional add-ons.
What do you mean by "more dynamic"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, Paizo is still WAY behind WOTC in terms of big-book-bloat.Separating out "big-books" is an artificial (and probably unhelpful) distinction, AFAIC.
and it's done more to create a dynamic game in 15 books than 3.5 did in 30.Arguable. I, for one, don't think this is even remotely true.
How about this, then?
It's had 15 very thick books, and it hasn't created anywhere near the phenomenon or the dynamic game that AD&D did with far fewer (and much thinner) books.
To answer the op, it is not so much a matter of bloat as it is a matter of how players take being told they can't play *Insert class here* at a specific table. If everyone is flipping out because they can't play *Insert class here* then I would say there is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot the Antipaladin.In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.Woah, 86 prestige classes?
I get 10 from core.
and 8 from APG. What am I missing?Also, I only counted 31 base classes
11 core
6 apg
1 UM
3 UC
10 ACG"The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right."
It´s not a base class, but an alternate for paladin.
The ninja is also an alternate class. Just as alternate classes are new classes so are archetypes. So the numbers are far higher than what has been stated.
To me the main problem isn’t the number of classes that Paizo produces; it’s the fact that PF was supposed to fix 3.5, but it obvious it didn’t.
New classes and new abilities create new weird synergies that in the end make the game problematic. I feel that some of the core problem are just addressed by add-ons or by patches and when it is obvious it can’t be fixed using patches then Paizo moves of to create a new class that is another option to X o Y, or perhaps it is the other way around; Paizo is so busy to create new stuff they don’t have the time to fix the old. My guess it is a bit of both.
But to problem runs deeper than just looking at classes, something the stealth play test showed. I’m not saying the Devs needs to give us a Pathfinder 2, but I think the Devs need to look at the core book(s) and fix what needs to be fixed. I also think denying that there is no problem with stuff and then years later admitting there are problems isn’t a way to go. With unchained coming out I fear this is just another optional patch that can possibly create more frustration than it solves and the problem will mainly be that it A) is only a patch so the real problem is still out there, b) it is only optional so those that see this as a salvation, but don’t get to use it will still be frustrated C) there is no chance that Paizo will support both options, the core options and Unchanied, D) more rules bloat will create more weird synergies that needs to be dealt with my Paizo and by GMs.
I don’t know, The Devs and the community may not want to admit it but I fear we need a PF 1.5.
I'll agree that all the rule synergies is what made 3.5 so great/terrible. I loved looking for weird ways to combine 3 levels of a PrC here, and this ability there to get some other something in the end. PF I feel like there is a lot more choice initially with all the base classes and archetypes, but the PrCs in PF are underwhelming overall. With PF, I plan a character out from the beginning, because I need to decide at the getgo which archtypes to pick and how I am going to level. With 3.5 I could (somewhat) pick as I went and make the character fit the campaign.
With PF, I plan a character out from the beginning, because I need to decide at the getgo which archtypes to pick and how I am going to level. With 3.5 I could (somewhat) pick as I went and make the character fit the campaign.
I feel the opposite is true; with all the prerequisites you had to fulfil in 3.5, a character had to be planned from level 1 all the way up. In Pathfinder its more pick as you go. You might plan out for some synergies and feat prerequisites (I hate those), but overall the amount of planning is less.
With PF, I plan a character out from the beginning, because I need to decide at the getgo which archtypes to pick and how I am going to level. With 3.5 I could (somewhat) pick as I went and make the character fit the campaign.I feel the opposite is true; with all the prerequisites you had to fulfil in 3.5, a character had to be planned from level 1 all the way up. In Pathfinder its more pick as you go. You might plan out for some synergies and feat prerequisites (I hate those), but overall the amount of planning is less.
When it comes to alternate class features, which I think was his main point, PF requires more planning than 3.5, simply for the fact that 20 levels of choices are made at level 1. Pick an archetype, and that's all of your alternate class features decided for you.
In 3.5, alternate class features were taken piece meal. You only had to take the ones you wanted, so your question was "Do I want X, and will that work with powers A,B, and C I already have). With Pathfinder, the question is "Do I want, V, W, X, Y, and Z', and will they work with A I already have, and abilities B, C, D, E, F that I'll get in the future?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am concerned that people are concerned.
Should we be making this much fuss? The game did not stoped being fun, and even with more classes I do not think it will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i still don't get why people call it "Bloated" seems to me "Expanding" is a much better word to use in this situation, something dead laying in the sun for 3 hours is Bloated, a recreational gaming system adding options with player participation is Expanding.
I knew someone would cherry pick that:)
the difference is a dead animal is dead, a gaming system is a product of the community, as long as the community is alive, engaged and vibrant the game system will to, no matter how much you add to it:)