The Ultimate "Splat" Books?

[Erekose]

Maybe it's just me but even without seeing the published books (which I know is a fundamental mistake but hey this is just speculation) the announcement of Ultimate Magic followed by Ultimate Combat has me twitching.

These appear to be the Pathfinder equivalents of the WotC "Complete" series. No doubt we'll have other books like (?), Ultimate Stealth, Ultimate Nature, Ultimate Faith, etc., as time goes by.

Is this the beginning of "rules bloat"? It certainly feels like it with the new classes announced.

I do trust Paizo to make a good job of the new books but are they really needed? Yes, Paizo needs to make money but in the 3.x era they did this with the adventure path (AP) and campaign setting books (which they are still producing).

It could be argued that all of the new books outside of the core rulebook are "optional". Certainly one of the strengths of the 3E adventures/supplements was that there was no need to have anything but the 3 core rulebooks (this wasn't as strictly adhered to in 3.5E). Will this be the case for the new Pathfinder books or will their content begin to be used in future APs or assumed within future setting material?

I know this is a bit of an unfocussed ramble - but I seem to remember that Pathfinder RPG was intended to be a published rule system to support the APs and campaign setting and now it appears to have taken on a life of its own.

 

[joebobodo]

It has been stated repeatedly by Paizo employees on their forums that the goal is to put out all (or at least most) of their "player's options" books early in the development of the game. It has been mentioned that the "ultimate" books (along with the apg) will likely be the end of dedicated player books for a while. I'm on a mobile device at work right now, so unfortunately, I don't have access to links at the moment.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

one thing to realize though is putting out 2 or three hardcover player option type books is a far cry from say 8 or ten granted these are larger.

 

[Aldern Foxglove]

For myself I think three Ultimate books would be about right. My only objection to the Complete series was their sometimes poor balance and I feel this is far less likely with Paizos extensive playtesting, etc.

I trust Paizo a great deal more than I ever trusted Wizards and I am fairly confident we will not have the number of silly game breaking options that 3.5 was famours for.

 

[cyderak]

It seems like paizo playtests their material more extensively than WOTC did. i personally didn't have a problem with the "Complete" series of books. Except for the "Book of Nine Swords" and the "Complete Scoundrel" . They didn't impress me much.
We used the complete books for the feats and class variants mostly. When it came to rules we usually kept to the core books. Splat books are nice for spicing it up a little by giving the players more choices. in the end if a DM doesn't like something coming out of a spalt book he can always dis-allow the use of it in the campaign.

Splat books are just another option to the players.

If the splat books push the balance of the party to one side or the other then the other players just aren't trying. There are always ways to make any character class just as powerful as another. If the adventure seems like the characters are zinging through it way too easily because of splat books content, then BEEF IT UP! If your the kind of DM that just likes to kill characters, well then I can't help you. In my opinion a DM should be a story-teller and present the characters with challenging obstacles, Not be the player slayer.

 

[Glade Riven]

It seems to be that Ultimate Magic/Combat is more along the lines of a mix between Complete {Etc}, Unearthed Arcana, and the 3.5 Tome of books. Rather than expanding out with a bunch of new classes and such as WotC did, Paizo is focusing on things that can be hot-swapped for flavor - and they seem to do a pretty good job of keeping things balanced.

I still want to see what they could do with psionics, though.

While APs and modules are the core of their business, it isn't what I buy. Campaign Settings and the Big Books are what I buy.

The question is, just how long this remains viable. WotC moved on to 4e because 3.5 was losing viablility for them - largly through creative issues. 3.5 had gone as far as WotC could take it. Paizo re-invigorated 3.5, partially because they had creativity to burn, but also partially because their strengths are in other areas than WotC.

Eventually, I expect a Pathfinder 2.0. The shift will probably be much like the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5, leaving room for some compatability without too much work. Or they may decided to leverage the brand by creating a new system. As long as sales are strong and the creativity isn't burnt out, Pathfinder will last. But as an artist, I know that sometimes one has to start with a fresh canvas to harness the muse.

 

[MichaelSomething]

As much as people hate it, splat happens and Pathfinder is no different in that regard.

 

[Glade Riven]

But...I like splats...well, good splats. Like Iron Kingdom's Liber Mechanika which presents an alternate magical item creation process and a guide on how to build steam-power walking monstrosities of magical might.

I actually wouldn't mind Paizo mining their adventures to create compliation splats of villains, items, etc.

 

[Anguish]

To be fair, Complete Magic will have one new class in it. Complete Combat will have zero new classes in it. It has three alternate-class-ability sets that replace existing classes. If you play a Ninja, you're really playing a rogue that substitutes a few abilities for specialization.

So far - judging from the APG - I think Paizo's doing a good job of widening player options without really introducing power-creep. Want to play a fighter who specializes in unarmed strikes... fine, there's an archetype for that.

I've always wanted to play a knife-throwing fighter, but it just doesn't work because it's so sub-optimal. With a nice archetype, it would be possible for such a thing... instead of making the game overall more powerful, make a sub-optimal choice closer in power to an optimal one.

That's what I think Paizo is up to. New rules that aren't easily cherry-picked for max/min situations.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I am significantly less excited over these then I was over the APG. Complete Magic...no, I have enough magic in my game, I'm good, unless you mean spells that are not for clerics/druids/wizards, then I'm far more eager. Complete Combat? Finding out Complete Combat will be having more wizard spells is the biggest turn-off I can imagine, especially when confronted with the idea that the spells would be built towards letting wizards do more fighter things.