Expanded Core new industry standard?

[Obryn]

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

 

[rkwoodard]

I almost

Just like other words, such as level, really.

I almost mentioned "Level" and referenced the older version that actually had the multiple definitions in the front of the book.

Your link is funnier however.

RK

 

[rkwoodard]

certainly

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

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

 

[EricNoah]

I would most prefer a handful of very generic classes, with feat chains and spell selection helping to make unique characters.

If that's not possible, I then prefer more base classes.

My least favorite option is the use of prestige classes. Ick.

 

[Erik Mona]

Sorry, sorry, sorry!

I should have said BASE classes. The CORE classes are the 11 found in the Core Rulebook. Period.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would most prefer a handful of very generic classes, with feat chains and spell selection helping to make unique characters.

If that's not possible, I then prefer more base classes.

My least favorite option is the use of prestige classes. Ick.

Why be hatin on the prestige man!!!

 

[Mallus]

Let's forget contested terms like "base" and "core". Classes, like all other RPG rules, are tools (for building your own game).

RPG companies are in the business of selling tools. If you need more tools, you buy them. If not, you don't. Simple, right?

 

[Sammael]

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.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Why be hatin on the prestige man!!!

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.