Did PF1 get too big?


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Derklord wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Without knowledge of the entire system, it is impossible for a DM to restrict rules interactions that would be damaging to his campaign while allowing unfettered access to the rest of the rules.

I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but do you have some examples where just patching things when they occur (i.e. vetoing a player's pick) wouldn't suffice?

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
To restrict content by means other than whitelisting, e.g. only these specific books or only these specific races/classes/archetypes/feats, requires the GM to be familiar with the entire body of the works.

Does it? When you don't know there are firearm rules, and someone want to play a pistolero in your viking campaign, you can still say "please, no firearms in my campaign". Unless you don't look over your player's characters before starting the campaign - is that a common thing?

I actually do allow only stuff from a limited number of books (relatively speaking, it's still over 60 books), but mostly because I don't like all that regional s#*@. If a player wants to use stuff from an unallowed book, I look at the book and decide than.

Bill Dunn wrote:
I think it did - particularly with fiddly bits of some of the classes. Too many options scattered across too many sources. While that may not be much of a problem in a homegrown game where a GM can exert a lot of control, it gets to be a drag on some APs and in PFS.

I actually made a spreadsheet with class options (rage powers, rogue talents, etc.) for many classes, mostly copied from AoN, for filtering and sorting purposes. Without my spreadsheets, or at least d20pfsrd/AoN, I'd be totally lost.

Don't you need to have a book or print-out of every material you use in PFS, though?

Watermarked PDF, but pulling stuff up that way will slow the game down to a standstill.

I bought an iPad and PDFs; no way I am carrying 200lbs of source materials to a game.


Does a car have too many seats?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Derklord wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
I think it did - particularly with fiddly bits of some of the classes. Too many options scattered across too many sources. While that may not be much of a problem in a homegrown game where a GM can exert a lot of control, it gets to be a drag on some APs and in PFS.

I actually made a spreadsheet with class options (rage powers, rogue talents, etc.) for many classes, mostly copied from AoN, for filtering and sorting purposes. Without my spreadsheets, or at least d20pfsrd/AoN, I'd be totally lost.

Don't you need to have a book or print-out of every material you use in PFS, though?

As an individual player for my own PC, yes, I am limited to the books I have and can specifically master what it is that I can do. But the scratch built tables of players can have any hodge-podge combinations so it’s hard to predict what PCs can and cannot do. That can be tricky for a fellow player, but worse for a GM.


Does a house have too many doors?


Derklord wrote:
I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but do you have some examples where just patching things when they occur (i.e. vetoing a player's pick) wouldn't suffice?

That would quickly cause players to jump ship to a different table and game. Pathfinder isn't so popular that that is a viable option from my perspective. I only know two other Pathfinder players, both whom I taught Pathfinder to, that aren't the fedora m'lady neckbeard "um ackchyually" crowd. Every other roleplayer at my local game store is playing 5e.


Barathos wrote:
I only know two other Pathfinder players that aren't the fedora m'lady neckbeard "um ackchyually" crowd.

??

I'm not familiar with that crowd. What does that "ackchyually" mean?

Would that make more sense if I were "ackchyually" North American?


Tsukiyo wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


the ability to build that ghoran Urban Druid with platypus animal companion, which I sadly still can't do in the current iteration of D&D.
So, you enjoy having niche esoteric options for yourself but complain that the system has too much content? Hmmm, okay then.

I think what he was really saying was that he had a love-hate relationship with the volume of PF1 rule books (options).

As for myself, I'm experimenting with using a PDF indexing program om Windows called Noggle and one on Android called AndroSearch (I have all the Paizo rule book PDFs) plus I'm trying to get used to using www.d20pfsrd.com (a lot of my players do).

I think that an epic move by Paizo would be to come out with a refined PF1 edition as their 2nd edition. Don't make it any bigger -- just make it a lot more manageable.

If they never do that and put all their energy into PF2 as it is, PF1 fans will still win in that PF1 is not getting any bigger. Hopefully, our collective voices can still demand more APs and modules -- I use both, find my players with Discord, and run my campaigns with D20Pro (which I highly recommend).

I GM two groups with a total of over 10 players.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tsukiyo wrote:
Barathos wrote:
I only know two other Pathfinder players that aren't the fedora m'lady neckbeard "um ackchyually" crowd.

??

I'm not familiar with that crowd. What does that "ackchyually" mean?

Would that make more sense if I were "ackchyually" North American?

Phonetically "actually".

In this context it's usually used by jerks to talk down to people, most often women.

Person: *explains a thing*

Jerk: "Well, actually..."


Rysky wrote:

Phonetically "actually".

In this context it's usually used by jerks to talk down to people, most often women.

Person: *explains a thing*

Jerk: "Well, actually..."

Yeah, I got the "ackchyually/actually" part, but what about "fedora m'lady neckbeard"?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tsukiyo wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Phonetically "actually".

In this context it's usually used by jerks to talk down to people, most often women.

Person: *explains a thing*

Jerk: "Well, actually..."

Yeah, I got the "ackchyually/actually" part, but what about "fedora m'lady neckbeard"?

They tend to go together.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tsukiyo wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Phonetically "actually".

In this context it's usually used by jerks to talk down to people, most often women.

Person: *explains a thing*

Jerk: "Well, actually..."

Yeah, I got the "ackchyually/actually" part, but what about "fedora m'lady neckbeard"?

It’s a variation on a meme implying that all gamers are overweight, unattractive, socially awkward men. All three items (wearing a fedora, using archaic language, and having the highly unfashionable “neckbeard” that covers the neck while leaving cheeks and upper lip bare) are considered attempts to be “interesting” by being deliberately non-mainstream. Without massive personal charisma, it can instead often come off as creepiness and obliviousness, or as trying too hard while lacking originality.

There’s also a connotation of laziness with the neckbeard. You rarely see a full, bushy, neckbeard so it instead usually looks unkempt, as if the wearer is too lazy to finish shaving.

It may be a highly America-centered meme, but I definitely see a lot of gamers with neckbeards.


Belafon wrote:
Tsukiyo wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Phonetically "actually".

In this context it's usually used by jerks to talk down to people, most often women.

Person: *explains a thing*

Jerk: "Well, actually..."

Yeah, I got the "ackchyually/actually" part, but what about "fedora m'lady neckbeard"?

It’s a variation on a meme implying that all gamers are overweight, unattractive, socially awkward men. All three items (wearing a fedora, using archaic language, and having the highly unfashionable “neckbeard” that covers the neck while leaving cheeks and upper lip bare) are considered attempts to be “interesting” by being deliberately non-mainstream. Without massive personal charisma, it can instead often come off as creepiness and obliviousness, or as trying too hard while lacking originality.

There’s also a connotation of laziness with the neckbeard. You rarely see a full, bushy, neckbeard so it instead usually looks unkempt, as if the wearer is too lazy to finish shaving.

It may be a highly America-centered meme, but I definitely see a lot of gamers with neckbeards.

While I may be unattractive, overweight, socially awkward and occasionally wear a fedora, my wife and daughters are none of the above, and all game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does this thread have too many responses?


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Tsukiyo wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


the ability to build that ghoran Urban Druid with platypus animal companion, which I sadly still can't do in the current iteration of D&D.
So, you enjoy having niche esoteric options for yourself but complain that the system has too much content? Hmmm, okay then.

I think what he was really saying was that he had a love-hate relationship with the volume of PF1 rule books (options).

As for myself, I'm experimenting with using a PDF indexing program om Windows called Noggle and one on Android called AndroSearch (I have all the Paizo rule book PDFs) plus I'm trying to get used to using www.d20pfsrd.com (a lot of my players do).

I think that an epic move by Paizo would be to come out with a refined PF1 edition as their 2nd edition. Don't make it any bigger -- just make it a lot more manageable.

If they never do that and put all their energy into PF2 as it is, PF1 fans will still win in that PF1 is not getting any bigger. Hopefully, our collective voices can still demand more APs and modules -- I use both, find my players with Discord, and run my campaigns with D20Pro (which I highly recommend).

I GM two groups with a total of over 10 players.

Forgot to add that I import NPCs and encounters into D20Pro from Hero Lab -- it's the coolest thing I've ever seen.


Belafon wrote:


It’s a variation on a meme implying that all gamers are overweight, unattractive, socially awkward men. All three items (wearing a fedora, using archaic language, and having the highly unfashionable “neckbeard”

It may be a highly America-centered meme, but I definitely see a lot of gamers with neckbeards.

Okay, got it, thanks. That was pretty interesting. That combination of words had me totally lost.


An update ... I've switched to MapTool. There is also a tool called hl2mt.exe that will import Hero Lab files (create tokens) for MapTool. The process is a lot slower because hl2mt.exe can't import the image from the Hero Lab file -- so you have to setup images yourself. D20Pro can do that all in one step -- but has issues.

However, my group currently likes MapTool much better. I will continue to watch D20Pro for future enhancements.


About PF1 getting too big ... I've come to find that players in their 20s seem to prefer playing RPG in an almost Marvel or DC comic-like universe. Pathfinder is well suited for that kind of thing. However, older players who started with Advanced D&D (1e), prefer a Tolkien-like universe.

As a GM, I'm learning to adapt. I'm wondering though whether Pathfinder has become polluted by offering so many options -- or if it's just filling a void that can't be satisfied by D&D and whether it should be doing that? Has this almost comic book like flexibility become PF1's downfall? Has it marginalized itself by creating a confused RPG environment that seems to have no central focus?

I really don't know. I love PF1 as much as ever and don't ever plan to stop playing it. Problem is ... what does the rest of the market think?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly not sure if the problem with PF1 was simply too many options, or that options seems to come out at a pace faster than Paizo could QA them, both to errata what needed it and approve things for PFS play.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

One problem, as a GM, with having so many player options available is that it really isn't a good way to prohibit things I don't like. I can't set up a list of forbidden options in advance, because there are too many possible things to assess. Are kineticists suitable for my game? No idea, I've never seen one played. I might be able to work it out if I spend an hour or so researching it, but I don't want to do that for everything.

I could blanket-ban vast swathes of options (Core-only or whatever) but the players probably won't like that.

Or I could wait until the players have finished making their characters, then say, "Oh, you made a Summoner? That looks too powerful to me. Start again. Maybe an Unchained Summoner, I think I read somewhere that they're better balanced." But that's very player-unfriendly too.

So I tend to end up allowing everything and hoping for the best.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
I might be able to work it out if I spend an hour or so researching it, but I don't want to do that for everything.

Then your only other otpion as a GM is to blanket ban/allow things past what you're familiar with.

I simply have my players run everything by me first (pseudo-submission), though I admit playing online makes that easier since I have constant access to their character sheets.


Rysky wrote:
I simply have my players run everything by me first (pseudo-submission), though I admit playing online makes that easier since I have constant access to their character sheets.

In the days of What's App, Dropbox & Co., you don't need an online campaign to have your character checked by the GM outside of actual gaming sessions. Even if you think a character sheet not filled in by hand was blasphemy, sending your GM a photo of it via What's App takes like thirty seconds. My group has all our character sheets in Dropbox, everyone in the group can look at everyone's sheet. There's a multitude of fillable character sheets to be found online (although I made my own version in Excel for my group to use because I was unsatisfied with the PDF one we had), and the folks using HeroLab have it digitally anyway.

Hell, just telling the GM your class, feats, talents, spells etc. and asking for an OK is the easiest thing in the world in the age of What's App, Telegram etc. For example, because one of my players has a Shaman by explicit exception even though I originally asked for no tier 1/2 classes in my game (first time GM), he asks me for spells he plans to prepare regularly whether they're OK or if I consider them too disruptive.

Arutema wrote:
I'm honestly not sure if the problem with PF1 was simply too many options, or that options seems to come out at a pace faster than Paizo could QA them, both to errata what needed it and approve things for PFS play.

Honestly, that's a problem with the development and editing process. They could for instance release all new game options to let's say a group of select forum members prior to printing a book to catch glaring mistakes (like the Fighter archetype that says it replaces the bonus feats at 3rd and 5th level) and obviously bad ideas (like Shifter). Doesn't need to be an actual playtest, just a few more people reading the stuff before it's send to the printing presses would help a lot.


Every time this comes up, it's still the dumbest question on the forum. When a GM regulates what comes into a campaign, the amount of possible material is irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PFRPGrognard wrote:
When a GM regulates what comes into a campaign, the amount of possible material is irrelevant.

I don't regulate because, as I said, there's no practical way to do so without spoiling the experience of character creation (which is PF1's main selling point) or putting in an insane amount of work.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
When a GM regulates what comes into a campaign, the amount of possible material is irrelevant.
I don't regulate because, as I said, there's no practical way to do so without spoiling the experience of character creation (which is PF1's main selling point) or putting in an insane amount of work.

Yeah, since you're supposed to know what you're regulating and with the entire PF1 content being open the "I don't have that book and no I won't read it if you have it" argument is kind of silly.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Did PF1 get too big?

Define 'too big'.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
Did PF1 get too big?

No, as in You can never have too many options.

Yes, as in I'm unable to actually buy and/or read all the stuff. As someone who likes to have a complete collection of a thing, that disturbs me very much.


Completionism is a disease.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.

2e got unwieldy - anyone remember Skills and Powers?
3.x got too big - and we got 4e
I didn't follow 4e but posts in this thread suggest it also got too big - and we got 5e
Pathfinder 1e got too big.
And Pathfiner 2e will get too big. We'll be here in about 6-8 years complaining about it or complaining about why 3e is unnecessary because 2e is so awesome.

Too big can be defined simply - too much material for any one person to master/too much material for one company to build a coherent marketing "why you should buy more" story.

This will happen to 2e (assuming it survives long enough.) The player base and the creator base and the publisher base share a common feature - they hunger to create, to build. Given any rules system that supports a narrative structure, new mini-games, sub systems and pc alternatives are inevitable, because it's the core desire of the purchaser base.


Matthew Downie wrote:

One problem, as a GM, with having so many player options available is that it really isn't a good way to prohibit things I don't like. I can't set up a list of forbidden options in advance, because there are too many possible things to assess. Are kineticists suitable for my game? No idea, I've never seen one played. I might be able to work it out if I spend an hour or so researching it, but I don't want to do that for everything.

I could blanket-ban vast swathes of options (Core-only or whatever) but the players probably won't like that.

Or I could wait until the players have finished making their characters, then say, "Oh, you made a Summoner? That looks too powerful to me. Start again. Maybe an Unchained Summoner, I think I read somewhere that they're better balanced." But that's very player-unfriendly too.

So I tend to end up allowing everything and hoping for the best.

Yeah, that's exactly how I see it and I'm handling it the same way. Just let everyone play everything and hope for the best. To some extent, I see this as playing to Pathfinder's strength -- or I should say niche. But it does make it harder (and interesting) dealing with all those character classes and races. One thing I do outlaw, though, is playing NPC races. Had players try that. I do allow it only if there is also a PC definition for the race.


Derklord wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I simply have my players run everything by me first (pseudo-submission), though I admit playing online makes that easier since I have constant access to their character sheets.

In the days of What's App, Dropbox & Co., you don't need an online campaign to have your character checked by the GM outside of actual gaming sessions. Even if you think a character sheet not filled in by hand was blasphemy, sending your GM a photo of it via What's App takes like thirty seconds. My group has all our character sheets in Dropbox, everyone in the group can look at everyone's sheet. There's a multitude of fillable character sheets to be found online (although I made my own version in Excel for my group to use because I was unsatisfied with the PDF one we had), and the folks using HeroLab have it digitally anyway.

Hell, just telling the GM your class, feats, talents, spells etc. and asking for an OK is the easiest thing in the world in the age of What's App, Telegram etc. For example, because one of my players has a Shaman by explicit exception even though I originally asked for no tier 1/2 classes in my game (first time GM), he asks me for spells he plans to prepare regularly whether they're OK or if I consider them too disruptive.

Arutema wrote:
I'm honestly not sure if the problem with PF1 was simply too many options, or that options seems to come out at a pace faster than Paizo could QA them, both to errata what needed it and approve things for PFS play.
Honestly, that's a problem with the development and editing process. They could for instance release all new game options to let's say a group of select forum members prior to printing a book to catch glaring mistakes (like the Fighter archetype that says it replaces the bonus feats at 3rd and 5th level) and obviously bad ideas (like Shifter). Doesn't need to be an actual playtest, just a few more people reading the stuff before it's send to the printing presses would help a lot.

I definitely prefer a snapshot of the character sheet (in whatever file format) versus an online URL. This eliminates cheating (e.g. changing spell during an encounter, for example).


PFRPGrognard wrote:
Every time this comes up, it's still the dumbest question on the forum. When a GM regulates what comes into a campaign, the amount of possible material is irrelevant.

Not really. Haven't really tried it, though. I know my groups are having a lot MORE fun having the flexibility to play what they want. The more options you take away generally the less happy people are. Another problem is that some people don't like the options other people pick. Seems like D&D basically handles all this by not creating the option in the first place -- but Paizo did and seems to have created a niche.


WormysQueue wrote:
Quote:
Did PF1 get too big?

No, as in You can never have too many options.

Yes, as in I'm unable to actually buy and/or read all the stuff. As someone who likes to have a complete collection of a thing, that disturbs me very much.

I bought the PDFs to all the rule books just in case someday for some reason it all goes offline. So, I get the feeling.


Latrecis wrote:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.

2e got unwieldy - anyone remember Skills and Powers?
3.x got too big - and we got 4e
I didn't follow 4e but posts in this thread suggest it also got too big - and we got 5e
Pathfinder 1e got too big.
And Pathfiner 2e will get too big. We'll be here in about 6-8 years complaining about it or complaining about why 3e is unnecessary because 2e is so awesome.

Too big can be defined simply - too much material for any one person to master/too much material for one company to build a coherent marketing "why you should buy more" story.

This will happen to 2e (assuming it survives long enough.) The player base and the creator base and the publisher base share a common feature - they hunger to create, to build. Given any rules system that supports a narrative structure, new mini-games, sub systems and pc alternatives are inevitable, because it's the core desire of the purchaser base.

Yes, I think with all the PF1 material I have that it might take me another 20 years or longer to fully use it all in my campaigns. I'm happy to try, though.


Brother Fen wrote:
Does a car have too many seats?

A car is a concrete object. Pathfinder is a abstraction, so I think the analogy breaks down making it much harder to tell where the line is -- but interesting thought.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Latrecis wrote:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.

2e got unwieldy - anyone remember Skills and Powers?
3.x got too big - and we got 4e
I didn't follow 4e but posts in this thread suggest it also got too big - and we got 5e
Pathfinder 1e got too big.
And Pathfiner 2e will get too big. We'll be here in about 6-8 years complaining about it or complaining about why 3e is unnecessary because 2e is so awesome.

Too big can be defined simply - too much material for any one person to master/too much material for one company to build a coherent marketing "why you should buy more" story.

This will happen to 2e (assuming it survives long enough.) The player base and the creator base and the publisher base share a common feature - they hunger to create, to build. Given any rules system that supports a narrative structure, new mini-games, sub systems and pc alternatives are inevitable, because it's the core desire of the purchaser base.

The existence, success and publishing model of 5e pretty much invalidates your post.


Brother Fen wrote:
Does a car have too many seats?

If I'm trying to buy a second-hand car, and the salesman boasts that it has thirty seats, there's a good chance that whatever he's selling won't fit in my garage.


In Medieval times they had a torture-execution of death by weight in which they tied you down and piled heavy stones on you until you were crushed to death.

Pathfinder is a bit like that. Physically, if you had a mound of every PF book, you could probably crush someone to death with them.

And if it's enough to crack your bones, imagine what all the info packed within can do to your brain!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally, I think it had the exact right size as to when produce a new edition. About all the setting books and splatbooks had been written and it was time for the next evolution. That I personally didn't like and agree with said "next evolution" is besides the point. I'm happy to own all the hardcovers and enough of the softcovers to support my hobby for the next decade and the next plan is to get all the pawns I still need.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

One problem, as a GM, with having so many player options available is that it really isn't a good way to prohibit things I don't like. I can't set up a list of forbidden options in advance, because there are too many possible things to assess. Are kineticists suitable for my game? No idea, I've never seen one played. I might be able to work it out if I spend an hour or so researching it, but I don't want to do that for everything.

I could blanket-ban vast swathes of options (Core-only or whatever) but the players probably won't like that.

Or I could wait until the players have finished making their characters, then say, "Oh, you made a Summoner? That looks too powerful to me. Start again. Maybe an Unchained Summoner, I think I read somewhere that they're better balanced." But that's very player-unfriendly too.

So I tend to end up allowing everything and hoping for the best.

Instead of blacklisting try white listing. Give a list of approved materials with additional materials subject to approval.


Gorbacz wrote:
Latrecis wrote:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.

2e got unwieldy - anyone remember Skills and Powers?
3.x got too big - and we got 4e
I didn't follow 4e but posts in this thread suggest it also got too big - and we got 5e
Pathfinder 1e got too big.
And Pathfiner 2e will get too big. We'll be here in about 6-8 years complaining about it or complaining about why 3e is unnecessary because 2e is so awesome.

Too big can be defined simply - too much material for any one person to master/too much material for one company to build a coherent marketing "why you should buy more" story.

This will happen to 2e (assuming it survives long enough.) The player base and the creator base and the publisher base share a common feature - they hunger to create, to build. Given any rules system that supports a narrative structure, new mini-games, sub systems and pc alternatives are inevitable, because it's the core desire of the purchaser base.

The existence, success and publishing model of 5e pretty much invalidates your post.

No, RPG history pretty much invalidates YOUR post.

Being rude is fun - but not very productive, or polite.

Good gaming to you all:-)


magnuskn wrote:
Personally, I think it had the exact right size as to when produce a new edition. About all the setting books and splatbooks had been written and it was time for the next evolution. That I personally didn't like and agree with said "next evolution" is besides the point. I'm happy to own all the hardcovers and enough of the softcovers to support my hobby for the next decade and the next plan is to get all the pawns I still need.

I pretty much did the same thing, but I just couldn't find enough local players. I found cheap ink on eBay for my Epson printer. I was making maps and pawns from PDFs.

Finally, I picked D20Pro (a VTT) and went online. Discord helped me find players -- I GM two groups now. D20Pro had some issues, so I switched to MapTool -- and it is working out great!

My point is to think about using a VTT because rather than printed materials, you'll be better off with PDFs. You can use them to play local games, if you want, or go online.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "there's 10 years of books piled on a somewhat shaky foundation" is more the problem than "there's 10 years of books". Since we never went back and changed the core rules to fix some of the fundamental systemic problems with the 3.x chassis, the whole edifice became unwieldy over time.

At some level "Pathfinder is full of broken stuff" is part of the fun and the charm, as this appeals to "tinkerers" it does make the game much more of a headache to run than it needs to be.


For me pathfinder is too big in the sense that it has tons and tons of material I personally find lackluster or bad designed. But that is not a big problem since as a GM I can just restrict the numbers of books avaliable for character creation.

Several people have suggested the same strategy in this thread, and I will guess they are seasoned players with a lot of knowledge of the system. For a newbie GM with newbie players pathfinder can look like a wall. Not only for the amount of material, but for system many flaws.
In the old days people would endure and look for a way to learn the system, but since 5e they don't have to. Besides is a good thing to be able to play a decent rogue with a crossbow without needing a Ph.D in system mastery.

It has been a couple of years since I've not seen any advertisement for a PF game in my city (a city with 12 million habitants) and all the gaming groups I know that play a version of d&d are playing 5e. Paizo could just not keep publishing PF1 forever.


So the problem with "just limit the number of books" I have is that a lot of Pathfinder characters I enjoyed had their genesis from picking up a book and finding a feat or an archetype or a spell or some player option that was the seed for the whole idea for the character. So I can't rightly say "Blood of the Sea" is off limits when I got a half-dozen character ideas from it, and someone else might have been similiarly inspired by a book I didn't get much out of.


Nicos wrote:

For me pathfinder is too big in the sense that it has tons and tons of material I personally find lackluster or bad designed. But that is not a big problem since as a GM I can just restrict the numbers of books avaliable for character creation.

Several people have suggested the same strategy in this thread, and I will guess they are seasoned players with a lot of knowledge of the system. For a newbie GM with newbie players pathfinder can look like a wall. Not only for the amount of material, but for system many flaws.
In the old days people would endure and look for a way to learn the system, but since 5e they don't have to. Besides is a good thing to be able to play a decent rogue with a crossbow without needing a Ph.D in system mastery.

It has been a couple of years since I've not seen any advertisement for a PF game in my city (a city with 12 million habitants) and all the gaming groups I know that play a version of d&d are playing 5e. Paizo could just not keep publishing PF1 forever.

Which books do you use? I'm very interested in where people thinks "the boundary" is when it comes to which books to use - and why ...


Nicos wrote:
For me pathfinder is too big in the sense that it has tons and tons of material I personally find lackluster or bad designed. But that is not a big problem since as a GM I can just restrict the numbers of books avaliable for character creation.

I don't think I could come up with a list of Pathfinder books and say, "These are the books that contains nothing but good material, and these are the ones that are badly designed."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also with the entire PF1 rules material being open content and the existence of various SRDs, the concept of books as a primary source of finding out new rules is obsolete. I am the only owner of any PF books in my gaming groups, all my players just pull out stuff from d20pfsrd/aon. The days where people used only the stuff they bought and owned physically are long behind us.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Nicos wrote:
For me pathfinder is too big in the sense that it has tons and tons of material I personally find lackluster or bad designed. But that is not a big problem since as a GM I can just restrict the numbers of books avaliable for character creation.
I don't think I could come up with a list of Pathfinder books and say, "These are the books that contains nothing but good material, and these are the ones that are badly designed."

Indeed. Even books I consider bad like the ACG have good material and good books have bad material.


GRuzom wrote:


Which books do you use? I'm very interested in where people thinks "the boundary" is when it comes to which books to use - and why ...

It does depends on the group and the campaing.

The pathfinder I find most comfortable with is just before the ACG, but without guns (due to mechanics not flavor) and summoner.

==================
In my last recruitment here in the forum these were the creation rules

-Classes allowed: Core + APG + Magus+ unchained rogue. No summoners or gunslingers.

-Archetypes allowed: You can take any archetype of any book as long as they don't have mechanics that requires
(a) Guns
(b) ACG, occult, unchained and/or newer books.

-Feats: AS with archetypes, you can take any feat as long as the feat doesn't require knowledge of the ACG, occult, etc. With this I mean that the effect of the feat has to be understandable just by reading the feat itself in the pfsrd and it doesn't require checking the aforementioned books.

-Spells: Core + APG + UC +UM.

===============

However, with my most trusted group of players I could eventually allow everything as long as the players deal with all the cumbersome mechanics. It's a pain sometimes but that's how they roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like it's easier to ban "specific mechanics" than "books" in any case.

Like I can say "No Gunslingers, Summoners, Leadership, Blood Money, or Sacred Geometry" which is going to be a lot clearer than having to specify books.

51 to 100 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Did PF1 get too big? All Messageboards