PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder RPG



Matthew
2008-05-21, 10:48 PM
Like it says on the tin; Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG).

Personally, I am looking forward to 3.5, where they fix all those niggling problems that were in 3.0... :smallwink:

Valairn
2008-05-22, 10:06 AM
Pathfinder Alpha 3 just got released, I really like what they did with the barbarian, and some of the feat trees are shaping up really nicely. I'm still not sold on it, what does everyone else think?

I really like the rage point system, expending anger on better smashing, some of the rage abilities are redonkulous. Like being able to add you character level to an attack role as a swift action, I approve.

Tingel
2008-05-22, 10:06 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81078

Valairn
2008-05-22, 10:07 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81111

SamTheCleric
2008-05-22, 10:09 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81111

Did you just link back to THIS thread? :smalleek:

Valairn
2008-05-22, 10:11 AM
Absolutely! The two posts are about different things. Even if the difference is slight. Any my sarcasm couldn't resist.

Tingel
2008-05-22, 10:18 AM
Absolutely! The two posts are about different things. Even if the difference is slight. Any my sarcasm couldn't resist.
They are about different things now, as you edited your post after my link. Which is fine, I guess.

To answer your newly added question: I like the Rage pool of a barbarian or the Ki pool of a monk. It's pretty much the same idea that was introduced in Iron Heroes.

Valairn
2008-05-22, 10:32 AM
Yeah you are right about that, I changed it cause I realized it wasn't very clear I wanted to talk about that particular change. MY BAD! /facepalm

The other one I noted was the rerolling of will saves with rage points, that could be very useful.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 10:34 AM
Actually, I think WoTC beat the Iron Heroes team to the punch with Ninjas, who have a ki pool of sorts.

Edit: Also, linky to the source, please?

Tingel
2008-05-22, 10:38 AM
Actually, I think WoTC beat the Iron Heroes team to the punch with Ninjas, who have a ki pool of sorts.
It's not about who did that idea first, since that's irrelevant anyway. Giving different classes differently themed "MP" pools for their special abilities is obviously an age-old idea.

I just mentioned Iron Heroes because the Pathfinder Barbarian reminded me a lot of the Iron Heroes Berserker. Since Valairn said he 'really liked' the new Barbarian, I just wanted to point him towards Iron Heroes, which might be to his liking. It's obviously very well possible that is already familiar with that system, but I mentioned it just in case.


EDIT: You can find the new Pathfinder Alpha if you follow the link I posted in the second post of this thread, Azerian.

Valairn
2008-05-22, 10:44 AM
Yeah it works out well with the barbarian in this instance though. It definitely gives a much bigger distinction between the fighter and barbarian too. Before a barabarian got stats, and a fighter got feats. Now a fighter is a master of a craft while a barbarian literally rages his way to victory, I like that.

axraelshelm
2008-05-22, 01:14 PM
I am completely sold on it. The art lovely, the new combat manunver wonderfuly simple. The sorceror flavourful, barbarian kicks ass. I'm a magic freak and what they done with the fighter is enough to make me play one so I think two thumbs way way up for Pathfinder and a brand new world to explore. (breath in) sigh

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-22, 01:23 PM
Me, Ima skeptical. They screwed PA, which is a pretty bad step.

Valairn
2008-05-22, 01:23 PM
Psionics are SRD, I hope they do something with that too honestly.

In reference to Power Attack, I think the change is reasonable. PA is open to all sorts of abuse, and really just like the polymorph school and their huge change to wish, they are dedicating to limiting cheese. Which is a good thing.

bosssmiley
2008-05-22, 01:35 PM
note: posting here, rather than here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81111) as this thread had priority by order of creation.

Ok, Eggy's Alpha 3 Initial Impressions (heavy on the character commentary, coz that's my personal biggest bugbear in 3.5).

Bard - decent bardic music SLAs at last! Stuff that gives the bard an option other than just "I inspire greatness" after 10th level. Although the "skill check as DC" thing has the potential for some colossal b0rkedness.

Monk - What a mess. All those fiddly little "expend ki points not to suck" abilities when the writers could just have made the monk a viable rogue replacement by giving them the option of using all simple weapons (kama = sickle, all else is mere marketing :smallannoyed:) + light armour, and a bunch of _level_appropriate_ movement modes (blinking, dimension dooring, air walking), debuffs (blinding strike, silencing strike, deadly strike, etc) and strike enhancements instead.

The monk should be a valid rogue substitute (ie: a master of the 'scuttle and gank' tactic set). The current one, well, isn't. Sooooo sad. :smallannoyed:

Paladin - the DR from aura of righteousness is still poor. Does DR5/evil mean anything at 17th level? DR = class level is something I might care about when being whumped for 9999 damage by high CR demons. Oh wait...that DR is no use against the paladin's iconic enemies anyway. :smallconfused:

Ranger - Is this a bad joke? Favoured enemy classes and favoured terrains are too situational to be meaningful. Your player might pick the terrain type 'desert', play the "Savage Tides" adventure path for 20 levels and see not a single desert all campaign. Favoured enemy isn't quite as bad as favoured terrain, but some of the categories are way too narrow to be anything other than suckerbait. Outsider(Water) as a serious 1/5 levels "this is who I am and what I do" class ability choice? Outsider(Elemental) or {any creature with the subtype}(aquatic) is perhaps more reasonable.

The two-weapon fighting fix is something that I know more than a few people retrofitted to the ranger anyway. No objections there.

Mid-high level class abilities are still the unveiled insult they were in 3.5. The hunter's bond option of extending super racism power favoured enemy bonuses to the ranger's entire party rather than to a glass-jawed pet *might* be useful. But who honestly cares about non-abilities like swift tracker, quarry or hide in plain sight? By the time the ranger gains those the casters are throwing about find the path, greater invisibility, true seeing, and the like.

Heck, I know a good ranger is difficult to write (I gave up after about a week of trying to make a forest fighter who didn't just burst into tears and wilt when the druid walked in), but surely a professional game writer can offer us something better than this reheat of something that was pretty rank to begin with?

Don't get me wrong. I like a lot of what paizo are doing with 3.P. I mean, I'm shamelessly ganking stuff like their turning mod, the idea of 4th Ed-ish 'at will' orisons/cantrips (cure minor wounds = stabilise dying character - nice!) and everything they offer the rogue. I just wish that the writers would have the courage to say:

"This bit thing here. B0rked beyond the point of salvability. You know it. We know it. The whole d20 community knows it. Backwards compatibility to a b0rked element brings b0rk we don't want into our new version of the game. So, the plan is we're gonna dump that and write our own version instead."

20 level NPC classes are one sore thumb example that springs to mind. Any character meaningful enough to have more than 5 character levels should have them in a real class. Just cut NPC classes off at level 5 and use the space thus saved for something else. Will someone please rub Jason Buhlman's nose in Justin's excellent Calibrating Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) article until enlightenment dawns?

Colour me ambiguous. I like Pathfinder so far. I steal from it merrily. But is it yet different and excellent enough to make me fork out £20+ for the hardback? Not by a long chalk.

bosssmiley
2008-05-22, 02:10 PM
Eggy is...undecided (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4355862&postcount=2). 3.P has lots of potential, but lots of polishing and meaningful beta-testing is still needed before it'll be truly £££s worthy IMO.

I only hope the designers have the courage to say to the fanbase:


"This particular element of the game is b0rked. You, we, and the whole d20 community know it, so we're going to kill that particular sacred cow and - with your help and input - design something much better."

Matthew
2008-05-22, 02:17 PM
I have to agree there, Bossmiley. I cannot see myself paying for a print copy of this game, but I suppose it's not really for the old D20 folks, so much as new D20 folks once the D20 D&D books leave stores.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-22, 05:29 PM
Colour me ambiguous. I like Pathfinder so far. I steal from it merrily. But is it yet different and excellent enough to make me fork out £20+ for the hardback? Not by a long chalk.

Seconded. I think it's great that they're continuing to support 3E, but they appear to have a shaky grasp at best of what the strong and weak points of 3E really are. At least WOTC is fully aware of that; they posted a list in one of their 4E previews that was a remarkably accurate summary of the problems.

Scaboroth
2008-05-22, 10:18 PM
Pathfinder RPG is the bomb. I am completely sold and I am never going back. There, I said it.

One of the ways that I see Pathfinder succeeding so strongly is that it is able to take a big long look back at 3.5 and fix one of the major things that went astray: power creep. As supplement after supplement was released, the base power level for each class or prestige class slowly crept up to the point where many of the PHB base classes were rendered only good as placeholders, something to do to kill time until you qualified for that bad*ss PrC. Now, the classes balance out. There’s actually a reason to go Fighter20, or Rogue20. And it’s not just about killer capstone abilities, but also about spreading decent class abilities throughout the life of your character, eliminating dead levels, and fixing low-level abilities so that they grow over time and advance as your character does. Domain powers that scale with level? Yes, please! Adding new powers and new capabilities to our heroes just makes them more heroic (which is to say, more fun to play).

So now we can exist in a system where the Spellfire wielder or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil aren’t so out of place. In fact, some of the PrCs from the earlier books are now a bit under-powered. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – you can take some PrCs just for the flavor. It doesn’t always have to be about powergaming, you know. I know, I know, it’s heresy that I speak, and I should be dragged into the street and shot. Just bear with me for a bit, please?

Pathfinder represents the 11 PHB base classes superbly, and I want to use them all. But over time, I’ve become used to the rest of the classes as well, and I don’t want to let them go. So here’s what I propose: let’s look at the rest of the base classes that have been released over time, and bring some of them in line with the rest of the Pathfinder classes. It won’t take much tweaking, really. But the first and most important step is to agree on which base classes are really worthy of being updated.

For example: Warlock? Big extra double-super-hell-yes! Warlocks represent a new spin on arcane magic, and some could argue that at-will invocations more closely represent the mythical archetype of “magic-user”. Plus, they’re bursting with flavor and lots of fun to play.
So, Dragonfire Adept? No, no, no. At best, they’re a warlock variant, and utterly unnecessary. Take all the DFA-special invocations and give them to the warlock (remember, we’re going for more versatility and fun here, not limiting the characters in what they can do. That isn’t what Pathfinder is about). Five-Fold Breath of Tiamat as a crazy Eldritch Essence Dark invocation? Works for me!
Duskblade? Why bother – playing a gish is the whole reason that 3rd Ed made multiclassing so easy and streamlined. Next!

You can see where I’m going with this. If a base class can already be represented by another class with only minor tweaking, don’t bother. If it fulfills a unique niche, like say the Marshall or the Binder, then we should think about updating it to fit in with the rest of the Pathfinder classes.

Thoughts, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-22, 10:48 PM
Duskblade? Why bother – playing a gish is the whole reason that 3rd Ed made multiclassing so easy and streamlined. Next!


...
We must not be playing the same 3E.

A multiclassed gish (a) isn't a gish at level one, (b) has to suffer through a while of suck before becoming good, (c) is very tempted to get as many caster levels as possible, because his casting is more effective than his melee.
Oh, and the gish (d) doesn't have class features that bring his two halves together. The Duskblade's Arcane Channeling does that; normal gishes cast spells, then fight.

Armads
2008-05-23, 12:37 AM
So, Dragonfire Adept? No, no, no. At best, they’re a warlock variant, and utterly unnecessary. Take all the DFA-special invocations and give them to the warlock (remember, we’re going for more versatility and fun here, not limiting the characters in what they can do. That isn’t what Pathfinder is about). Five-Fold Breath of Tiamat as a crazy Eldritch Essence Dark invocation? Works for me!

Or Warlocks could be a DFA variant.

Matthew
2008-05-23, 01:25 AM
Wow, so not two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81078), but three (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81111) threads on Pathfinder now? One of these is bound to get locked, I will see if the moderators would consider merging them.

Glad you have found the game for you, Scabaroth, but it seems a bit weird to me to post a thread and ask people for their opinions, but not to post if they disagree with yours. :smallwink:

I will give it a go anyway:

I think the new skill point system is a good idea.
I think it is a good idea to change some feats and combat rules.
I hope they address the 'spell' issue.

Merlin the Tuna
2008-05-23, 02:09 AM
Seconded. I think it's great that they're continuing to support 3E, but they appear to have a shaky grasp at best of what the strong and weak points of 3E really are.A thousand times this. I pretty much slammed my face on the desk when I saw that the fix for the Fighter was nothing more than "Extra damage and AC!" Huge parts of this look like they were designed by someone who recognized that strange, mystical things happen on the CharOp boards, but not what any of those things were. And then there are a few clumsy me-too rules that seem to be inspired by 4E and haphazardly implemented here, such as the race changes.

This looks like a trainwreck to me... and I don't see how this even begins to be backwards compatible unless you had a pretty tenuous grasp of where game balance stood in 3.5. As it stands, I don't see this solving any of my problems with 3.5, and it creates a whole slew of new ones.

If I keep anything about the old rules, it'll be E6. 3.P, not so much.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-23, 04:29 AM
If you don’t agree with me, please don’t express it here. What I really want is for the enlightened ones, who see things as I do, to weigh in with their opinions and eventually their help.
Yeah, that'll happen.


fix one of the major things that went astray: power creep.
Yeah, that's precisely why the pathfinder base classes are more powerful than their PHB equivalent.


So here’s what I propose: let’s look at the rest of the base classes that have been released over time, and bring some of them in line with the rest of the Pathfinder classes.
Actually, asking that on this message board is a good idea, because overall the variant classes proposed here to fix various problems with 3.5 are better than what Paizo has come up with.

See, Paizo has a great idea, to continue support for 3.5, but suffers from poor execution because (unlike WOTC) they don't realize what the actual problems with 3.5 are. While many of the things Paizo writes are cool and fun to play with, they fail to address several fundamental problems that most D&D-related message boards are strongly aware of.

Grynning
2008-05-23, 05:56 AM
I would also point out that even in Pathfinder, there is still no reason to go Fighter 20 - especially given the god-awful "combat feat" rule. In case you missed it in your first read (like I did) "combat feats" are a special class of feats and make up the bulk of the fighter bonus feats. Some of them are quite nifty, others are pretty crappy (Weapon Swap, for example), but the main problem is the fact that you can only activate ONE per round. This wouldn't be bad if the Combat Feats were badass moves on par with ToB maneuvers, but no, the combat feats include things like Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack - so, if you actually use Spring Attack, you lose the benefits of its two prerequisites. Yeah, like that progression needed to be made crappier.

I like the idea behind Pathfinder, but as Kurald said, it's poorly executed.

KIDS
2008-05-23, 06:00 AM
I respectfully point out that power creep has nothing to do with supplements, first or last. The first power creep was in the first Player's Handbook and remained unmatched no mater the number of sourcebooks released.

If they worked on fixing the power creep (or balance) in there, that's great. But blaming supplements is a really poor excuse.

Scaboroth
2008-05-23, 04:49 PM
Cool, some folks have joined in the discussion.

Armads: Touche! But it begs the question, then: which came first, dragons or demons?

Reel On, Love: I can see your argument for inclusion of the Duskblade. The players I game with couldn't optimize their way out of a wet paper bag, so I tend to gear my thinking more toward the concept or archetype behind a class, and not so much their game stats. I no way am I saying that powergaming is a bad thing - I recognize that I am solidly in the minority for playing the way I do. I'll try not to let my biases show through quite so strongly.
I've never actually played with a Duskblade before, just read about them. What do you think about the Beguiler, then? Worthy of its own class, or could it be folded into another (like Enchanter)?

KIDS: okay, I'll accept your point that power creep happened right from the very beginning, I'm assuming you mean CoDzilla. But more of the later supplements had PrCs that are considered broken or overpowered. I like Pathfinder's idea of bringing all the classes in line with the more powerful ones, and not dumbing down the fun ones just to match the weakest. As I said, more power and more capabilities equals more fun!

Kurald: I freely admit that stats are not one of my strengths. I am all about the flavor, and can lend enthusiasm and organization to any project, but I was hoping that some of the geniuses here in the Playground would help me out. I really like what Paizo has done, but I know that the Playground can do even better:smallsmile:

Worira
2008-05-23, 05:08 PM
Am I the only one who though this topic was about this spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm)?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-23, 05:35 PM
I did too, Worira. It is a damn fine spell, too. Nifty in Tomb of Horrors.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-23, 05:38 PM
Is it an improvement on the core rulebook? Yes, likely. What impact is it having on the elephant in the room (relative power of full caster vs. melee)? It's sweeping the droppings into the trash (Wild Shape, Divine Power, etc.) but still strictly avoiding looking the elephant in the eye.

Still, I read each version, and I'm taking special interest in seeing their iterative design process at work.

Is that un-negative enough? :)

Renegade Paladin
2008-05-23, 06:03 PM
For those who think they're not addressing the core problem: This is an open alpha test they're running. If you want it fixed, the thing to do is submit report after report to Paizo telling them what needs fixing. The final release isn't until 2009; the beta starts at GenCon this year. There's opportunity to get what you want out of this system, but sitting around here gabbing about it isn't going to get it done. :smalltongue:

Scaboroth
2008-05-23, 07:18 PM
Renegade Pal, you have an excellent point. People's complaints about what Pathfinder is/is not doing right should be adressed directly to Paizo. What I'm hoping for with this thread is discussing something I know they will not do, which is update any of the other base classes released in later supplements.

So to get back on track, let's look at a few categories. Sorcerors were originally just Wizards who cast spontaneously instead of using prepared spells. The advent of Bloodlines gives them their own unique flavor, which is all to the good. But even before that, they held an important niche on their own. So if Sorcerors are another aspect of Wizards, then we also need Favored Souls to reflect Clerics. And Spirit Shamans to reflect Druids. And Wilders to reflect Psions. And throw in Archivist as another way to explore divine magic, related to the Cleric but different enough in mechanics that they deserve their own class.

And while we're on psionics - Psion as a base class is crucial, as is Wilder and Psychic Warrior. Mindblade? Eh, as much as I like them, they just don't seem like they stand out enough to warrant a base class. They should probably be a PsyWar prestige class instead. Same with the Lurk (from Complete Psionics) - make it a rogue/psion PrC. The Ardent and the Divine Mind (from the same book) have interesting new mechanics, in that they use psionic mantles in much the same way a cleric uses domains. So I say include em both (with heavy revision).

Hey, I just noticed an interesting pattern in the classes. Each new category of "power" (be it divine, psionic, incarnum, what have you) seems to have two classes that go along with it, one which is geared more toward "casting" (or manifesting, etc) and one which is geared more toward combat but still uses the power.
Divine Magic = Cleric / Paladin
Psionics = Psion / Psychic Warrior
Psionic Mantles = Ardent / Divine Mind
Incarnum = Incarnate / Soulborn
So what would the "combat-heavy" class be to accompany arcane magic? Could Hexblade maybe be considered more a Wizard-class than a Fighter-class?
And on that note, could you maybe consider Ranger to be the more combat-heavy accompaniment to the Rogue? Assuming that the "power" here is stealthy-sneaky instead of magic?
Interesting...
Matching up pairs of classes may be the best way to cover all the bases here...
Maybe this idea deserves further thought?

Matthew
2008-05-23, 08:54 PM
Matthew: sorry if my intial post came off as arrogant, that wasn't my intention. I said that specifically because there are already multiple Pathfinder discussion threads. If you want to debate (or trash) the merits of Pathfinder, I'd rather do it in one of the threads already set up for that (and let people more familiar with the game system construct better arguments than I can).

No, not arrogant, I just cannot quite figure out the limits of what we can say, as it sounds as though constructive criticism might be interpreted as detracting from the purpose of the thread.

The Duskblade, for instance, I think is a great idea for a class and quite well designed, but I am not sure if it's worth saying that in this context, since you have already rejected it, if you see what I mean.

Of course, if we're just redesigning classes ala Pathfinder, then perhaps this should be in Homebrew?

Scaboroth
2008-05-23, 11:02 PM
When i condemned the Duskblade, I was just throwing out a snap judgment. More than one person now has disagreed with me, so I concede that maybe I was wrong to do so. I'm not trying to limit discussion or constructive criticism, I just anticipated some people telling me that "Pathfinder sucks, why don't you just play 4th Edition instead?" I'm not interested in 4e, and I'll let other (wiser) heads debate the merits of either/or. Yes, i would like to just up and redesign some of the classes a la Pathfinder, so maybe this thread would be better served in Homebrew. I'll be away from my workstation all weekend, and probably insanely busy next Tuesday, so I'll see about gathering my thoughts
and not talking smack about the Duskblade and starting a new thread over there next week sometime. Thanks for the input, by the way. Enjoy the holiday!

Matthew
2008-05-23, 11:38 PM
Ah, right. I just tend to skip over posts that say stuff like that, so I didn't get what you meant.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-05-24, 12:21 AM
Pathfinder RPG is the bomb. I am completely sold and I am never going back. There, I said it.

I respect Paizo for doing Pathfinder RPG, and I certainly wouldn't object to playing it if a DM wanted to run it, but as a DM myself I worked out the set of house rules that I want for "3.75 edition" long before Pathfinder came about.

As to which class to revamp first, I suggest Spellthief. It desperately needs an overhaul as a PrC.

TS

Kurald Galain
2008-05-24, 05:44 PM
If you want it fixed, the thing to do is submit report after report to Paizo telling them what needs fixing.

Yes. The problem, however, is that they're literally drowned out in comments, a substantial amount of which is stuck in permanent "soooo coool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoggoth)" or permanent "this sucks" mode. So with their current forum model, I'm not at all convinced they can separate the wheat from the chaff regarding comments, and actually fix what needs fixing.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-24, 06:05 PM
Incarnum = Incarnate / Soulborn


Nah, Incarnate is combat, just with a d6 HD and wizard BAB. We incarnum-cheerleaders prefer to deny that there ever was a 'soulborn' class.

Renegade Paladin
2008-05-24, 07:21 PM
Yes. The problem, however, is that they're literally drowned out in comments, a substantial amount of which is stuck in permanent "soooo coool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoggoth)" or permanent "this sucks" mode. So with their current forum model, I'm not at all convinced they can separate the wheat from the chaff regarding comments, and actually fix what needs fixing.
(I have Jason Bulmahn's AIM handle.) :smallamused:

Roland St. Jude
2008-05-24, 07:30 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Unholy thread merge above.

Merlin the Tuna
2008-05-24, 07:33 PM
For those who think they're not addressing the core problem: This is an open alpha test they're running. If you want it fixed, the thing to do is submit report after report to Paizo telling them what needs fixing.I mean, this is true if you've got faith that Paizo will fix the problems you see with 3.5. I don't at the moment, so I'd rather just glance through for the occasional house rule and grumble about the things I don't like.

<Shrug>

Thanks for the merge, Roland.

Matthew
2008-05-25, 12:55 AM
Aye, thanks for the merge, Roland.

I don't know whether Paizo Publishing are really interested in fixing the problems of D20, so much as just tweaking things a bit. I think that their adjustment to skill points is a pretty cool simplification, but I haven't seen much else in the rule set that screams out at me as 'good'. I think part of the problem is keeping things backwards compatable. The more you change, the less compatable previous books will be. It is a hard road.

I have to agree, though, that my brief stint on paizo's forums was not encouraging. There was as much division there as there was on Wizards of the Coast's forums as to what 4e should be like. I am increasingly feeling as though Paizo should just consider going their own way, instead of worrying about backwards compatability.

The change over from 3.0 to 3.5 is instructive in this regard. Even though the changes were relatively minor, very little 3.0 material remained truly compatable, by which I mean was accepted by adherents of the new edition as acceptable for inclusion.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-25, 03:30 AM
I am increasingly feeling as though Paizo should just consider going their own way, instead of worrying about backwards compatability.

I don't think they can. Backwards compatibility is their main selling point to the entire 3.5 crowd, which coincidentally happens to be their primary fan base. If they were to go their own way, they'd be just another minor blip on the RPG radar that most people won't even have heard of.

I think what they're lacking is a strongly envisioned goal. "Keep stuff running" isn't one, and "make stuff cooler" is highly subjective.