General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Mona Here's a tidbit unrevealed elsewhere.
We decided the next four core classes for Pathfinder today. As in the whole staff agreed on the conceptual and mechanical niches and we've officially green-lit development.
And we'll announce which ones at Gen Con!
--Erik
Eh... well, I'm categorically opposed to the proliferation of core classes, so I can't say I'm exactly excited by this.
__________________________________________________
In the Pathfinder 1st printing sell out thread, Mr. Mona dropped the above tidbit about an annoucement at GenCon of the next Core Classes.
So, expanded Core is now an industry standard it seems.
Do we have strong feelings on this..either way?
RK
__________________ Looking for game in Mid. Tennessee area.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Core as 4E uses the term (upcoming supplements will assume you use this material) or core as it was often used during the 3E era (non-prestige, 20-level, selectable at 1st level)?
It does seem to fit their something-interesting-every-level approach though. If they keep their prestige classes more for flavour and RP, then entire new concepts get a core class.
Something like that? I always tinker with classes in my game to keep the characters the way the players want them and give them something every level to play with. Me likee this approach from Paizo.
__________________ D&D, frankly, is the most fun when you get your ass handed to you but you still manage to find away to come out on top of the pile of corpses, looking like a typical Conan novel cover. - joachim
I'm not so sure that "Core" in this case isn't interchangeable with "Base."
__________________ "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth,
and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again."
Even though The Wheel weaves as The Wheel wills, rest assured James Oliver Rigney, Jr. will NEVER be forgotten.
I think it just means new 20 level classes. There were a bunch in 3.5 as well. I am OK with new stuff to choose from. I won't use all of it for sure. but it is nice to read, and there will likely be some gems that make it into my games.
On that note I would be very happy to see a PF version of psionics, and some good PF fluff working it into the world (not that I think the old version of psionics are bad).
Eh... well, I'm categorically opposed to the proliferation of core classes, so I can't say I'm exactly excited by this.
__________________________________________________
In the Pathfinder 1st printing sell out thread, Mr. Mona dropped the above tidbit about an annoucement at GenCon of the next Core Classes.
So, expanded Core is now an industry standard it seems.
Do we have strong feelings on this..either way?
I personally love new, well designed classes, no matter the edition be it AD&D, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e or what have you.
Of course, it isn't so easy to design a good class...
__________________ 'Can a magician kill a man by magic?' Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. 'I suppose a magician might,' he admitted, 'but a gentleman never could.'
I don't know if its really a new phenomenae though, we've been getting Core Expansions since AD&D's Unearthed Arcana. Maybe the terminology is a little different now.
I think it's a sensible way to run a game line, honestly. And for something like PFRPG, where the default assumption is the Golarion setting, it's probably less contentious than it is for WotC, which is supporting several settings simultaneously.
Regardless, IMO it's the most reliable business model right now. WotC figured this out over time, and I see no reason to believe the same marketing data about core supplements wouldn't hold true for Pathfinder as well.
While you personally might not want new classes and new core options, sales figures (AFAIK) have reliably shown that books with these sorts of new options reliably outsell everything else. Paizo is a business, just like WotC, White Wolf, etc. are.
I think it's a sensible way to run a game line, honestly. And for something like PFRPG, where the default assumption is the Golarion setting, it's probably less contentious than it is for WotC, which is supporting several settings simultaneously.
Regardless, IMO it's the most reliable business model right now. WotC figured this out over time, and I see no reason to believe the same marketing data about core supplements wouldn't hold true for Pathfinder as well.
While you personally might not want new classes and new core options, sales figures (AFAIK) have reliably shown that books with these sorts of new options reliably outsell everything else. Paizo is a business, just like WotC, White Wolf, etc. are.
-O
I tend to agree with all that you said. I don't have an opinion, and wanted to see what others thought. I knew from the post I quoted and other threads that the word "Core" is getting to be something of a hot button.
I agree that it is good business to put out books with new classes, I was just wondering at people's reaction to the use of "Core".
RK
__________________ Looking for game in Mid. Tennessee area.
I've reduced the number of base classes in my 3e/3.5e hybrid game, making many of what used to be base classes into multiclass combinations or prestige classes.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
RPG companies are in the business of selling tools. If you need more tools, you buy them. If not, you don't. Simple, right?
It's not quite that simple, because if the base classes appear in more than one rulebook, than any further supplemental materials that take all base classes into account will be less useful for those who decide not to purchase all rulebooks. For instance, if the Wizard base class appears in one book, and the Sorcerer appears in another, and then the material in Complete Spellcaster is divided equally between the two, Complete Spellcaster will be inherently less useful to those who only bought book 1 or book2. Whereas if you keep all base classes in one book and then use the supplements to expand their concepts beyond the initial one, the supplements become more useful for everyone.
I hate them because they were represent an inelegant solution to balancing classes and class combinations:
e.g. Want to play an effective wizard/rogue?.?.?. You're gonna have to be an arcane trickster or daggerspell mage.
Want to be a fighter that doesn't bite it at high level?.?.? Then play prestige class X, Y or Z.
I would have rather they built more flexible core classes with distinct talent trees that would allow you to customize your character. Saga edition and D20 modern did a decent job of this... I just wish a d20 fantasy game could follow suit.
Besides I don't think PrCs were well balanced when compared to other PrCs, so they were flawed in that way as well.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
