Capt. D's page

You know I've often wondered if it was the formating that that created a lot of the initial bad reactions to 4e.

A lot of the initial bad reactions were likely more focused on WotC, the company itself, than towards 4e.

Although I did buy the corebooks when they were released and even stuck around and got the Forgotten Realms books. My group and I just did not like the game. Rituals(we all disliked messing with them) & everybody having superpowers, it just didn't feel right to us. We've only played with a few builds in Essentials, but so far the classes in those books don't feel like fantasy superheroes. It feels more like D&D.
We still aren't fans of all the powers, but they seemed to be more stripped down and tolerable in Essentials. At least so far.

I know it was very jarring for me at first, you just got so used to those class charts etc. from 3.x. I didn't have anything else to read, as i was stuck in the desert, so i powered through and it grew on me as i adjusted. I was always curious how many people just got fed up and never made the jump becuase they had other options.

I'm guessing wizards figured this out after a few focus groups and -bam- we have essentials.

My group tried to make the move to 4e, but as it was originally released it just didn't work for us. So we went back to 3.5 and then snatched up Pathfinder as soon as it was released.

4e Essentials isn't exactly what we want, but it is a little closer than standard 4e.
Plus the digest-sized books and the improved organization are fantastic. I buy pocket editions every chance I get, but WotC out did every pocket guide I've ever bought. I wish every company would put these out.
I would love to have a well organized, digest-sized Pathfinder Rules Cyclopeida with just the essential rules(combat, magic, character creation cheat sheet), a short GM section(magic items, Traps, encounter building, treasure rules, just basic GM rules & tables) and stats for about 100 monsters.
Then release the digest-sized Player's Handbook with combat rules, all necessary character creation rules/info, basic equipment and a variety of races & classes. You could have the basic Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, Theif and Ranger. But you could also add a class or two from the AdvPG and/or from any other PFRPG product(Companion, Campaign Setting, etc). Since we aren't going to get away from the core races, it would still be nice to have a non-core race (Drow, Minotaur, Tengu) added to the mix.
These books don't have to go into the level of detail the standard books do, but it would be nice to have smaller books for reference/use when gaming away from home. I tend to carry an RPG book with me everywhere I go. Right now Essentials and DC Adventures hold that position because they are easier to carry than the Pathfinder Core book.

Man, anything would be helpful and if there is no problem tell me your email so I can send my mail address. In here there should be no copyright issues because, well, there is no distribution at all but if that's an issue in your place, don't sweat it. I think I could get my hands in the pdf by tomorrow cause they are too large for my Internet connexion and a friend of mine is currently doing so. I hope he has no problems downloading it. I managed to get the campaign setting of Golarion via sailors with patched eyes and is very interesting. I'm seriously thinking in crossing my campaign to Golarion but we'll see. Also, I see if I can scan the drawings of our last session so you all can see it.

I was going to PM you, but I can't find that option. go to The Geek Gazette There's a link to email me on the page.

I agree with nearly everything in this post... I've run children's games as well as games for new gamers and all of the things that Capt. D has listed hold true.

I asked some of my players and some players from other groups. Nearly all of them, even the 4e lovers, pretty much agreed as well.

For new players the entire goal should be simplicity and fun. The more stuff they have to remember during gameplay the quicker they will loose interest and possibly never return to the table.

A few posters have stated that they don't think Paizo ought to create a set of rules that is for a less strenuous system, but rather try for some high-gloss, easy to digest intro game that can attract the younger generation. IMHO I don't think that these games necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

You can simplify the rules, a lot, and still keep them completely compatible with the core game.

I'm looking at this from the POV of teaching new players or kids that are too young to grasp the core rules. The intro-game should not be geared towards existing players. Sure we should be able to have fun with it, if we are the ones using it to teach the game, but the new and/or casual player should be 99.9% of the focus.

Seems to me that Paizo's strength is their writing. Their adventures and support material are top-notch. The rules were built on the shoulders of a preexisting system. Why not just pare them down a bit (back to many of Capt. D's suggestions) and use the result as both a complete game, in and of itself, as well as a tool used to introduce / lure the new gamer to the table? The existing core rule book could be the natural extension or "next step", should the player be interested in taking it.

A complete, rules-lite (to over use an OSR term) PF game, with which you could jump in and play any of the PF material (past, present and future) would be a massive win for the company as well as the community.

I've never been disappointed in a Paizo products. If anyone can create a completely compatible, rules lite game. I think they can.

I haven't played the new 4e Red Box, but from what I've heard it is extremely simple, but still compatible with 4e. If they can do it with 4e, they can do it with PF.

Something that would be portable enough to fit in a small shoulder bag (Digest-sized books anyone?),

Digest-sized books, similar to the new Essentials books would be a "dream come true". I hate lugging a bunch of big books around and I despise trying to reference rules on a computer screen.

I've lost my youngest daughter's interest due to the complexity of the game. She loves imagining each scene, the NPCs and how her character interacts. But when it comes to selecting spells or pouring through a long book in order to look up a description of something, she's done. My eldest has a better attention span and is much more patient. I don't think that these two are corner cases either, probably quite the opposite in fact.

I have older players with the same problems.

Why not make a game that allows them to imagine right away, rather than directing them to learn rules first? I'm not adverse to rules...I'm adverse to pausing play for any reason. Long character creation w/ too many choices, huge long lists of feats, skills, spells, etc. seem to kill the initial desire. While this may appeal to many, it's not an inducement, and is often an impediment to others.

People want simple, fast and fun. The more complex you make it, the more they wonder why they aren't just playing PS3, WoW or 4e Essentials.

What exactly do you like better about HotFL than the 4E PHB1?

Everyone else did a pretty fine job of explaining this for me. Essentials "feels" better. The builds seem "friendlier" and overall I just found Essentials to be better organized, easier and more enjoyable to read.

To me the classes in the original 4e seemed to be all the same. I know they weren't but they seemed that way. In essentials they actually feel different.
To me Essentials doesn't feel as sterile and bland as the original 4e core books.

That's good to hear.

I have to admit that while I do like and play PF, 3.5 and 4E, I actually prefer the 4E ruleset and battles to 3.5/PF. All the crazy stuff with the environment during battles, hordes of minions and the lack of auto-win by wizard just make many fights feel more interesting to me.

I still prefer my Pathfinder, but using Essentials has made 4e more enjoyable for me. As it was before I didn't care if I ever played the game again. While I will likely never open my original 4e PHB or DMG again, I am kind of looking forward to running another Essentials game. The RC, HotFL, HotFK & MM3 are probably all I'll every use when playing 4e. Though my I might pick up Heroes of Shadow next year.

I know I have a few dice that I can spare. I've bought the hardcopies and pdfs for most Pathfinder rulebooks, I also have the capabilities to print the pdfs(in b&w). If there won't be any legal isseus/trouble for sharing a pdf I would be willing to donate a printed copy. If a printed copy wouldn't work I could donate a cd with copies of my legally purchased pdfs burned on it.
Again only if there will be no legal issues with doing so.

We're VERY early in the preliminary stages of designing this game, and there's really not much more for us to say about it now other than "We're doing it."

What would be more valuable to us would be: What do YOU the customer hope to see in a Pathfinder introduction game?

As someone who just ran his 12 year old through her first adventure, I would have loved to have had a a Pathfinder lite to run for her. Here are a few of the things I would have liked to have had in a PFRPG basic

game.

1) Fewer skills. I've always thought the 3.x/Pathfinder skill list is unnecessarily long. 10, maybe 15 skills max is all we really need. Many gamers end up using the same 5-10 skills and the others just take up space on the character sheet anyway.

2.) Feats are something else that seems pointless in an introductory game. My groups always take feats like toughness, any proficiency they need for weapons and armor, and still spell/silent spell/combat casting. After those they never give their feats a second thought or use them in-game. I know there are players that utilize feats regularly, but not using them has never impacted any game I've ever played. A new player doesn't need to be overwhelmed with a bunch of feats.

3.) Magic. My daughter and many of the newer players I've known don't get the resting to relearn magic spells that you already know. They also don't like stopping during a game to decide if they need to drop certain spells or alter their list.
We solve this issue by making spell lists static. Once you know a spell the only way to replace it is when you level up. You can choose to "forget" or erase some spells and replace them with a new ones, but only during level up.

4)Another problem I've heard from newer players is with spells per day/spell slots. We use Spells per day as a total that is not affected by level.
For example, your spells per day are 4 zero level, 2 first level and 1 second level, that gives you a total 7 spells per day.
That means you can cast any spell on your list a <b>total of 7 times per day</b>, as long as you know that spell and it is not above your caster level. Once those 7 "points" are gone, you are done until you rest up.
We never mess with having to prepare the spell multiple times, spell slots or anything like that. Once you know a spell, you know it and don't forget it unless you level up and erase it from your spell-book.
This makes more sense to younger players. After all Harry Potter, Gandalf and any other magic user in the movies/tv shows or video games they are familiar with do not forget their spells every day. They just run out of "energy" (Spells per day points) and need to rest. Even my older players like this better. They claim it is less disruptive than having a magic user rummaging through a book trying to figure out which spells they want while the game is still going on.(during rest/healing periods)

5)I've also found that newer players are completely happy with having only Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Thief/Assassin as classes. They prefer Sorcerers over Wizards because they don't have to worry about materials or spellbooks. However, they are not happy with the being limited by the core races, with the exceptions of elves.
Every new player I have ever had in my groups always wants to play a something besides a dwarf, Half-elf, human, halfling, half-orc, or gnome.
Drow, goblins, minotaurs, tieflings (even before 4e), some kind of lizardfolk, or a half-aquatic race are always among the first requests I get from new players. After that is something with wings.
New Players and even my older players like to play a variety of races, classes just don't matter as much. Honestly to most new players the only fantasy roles/classes they are familiar with are fighter, magic user, thief and maybe cleric/priests.

6)Keep combat simple and the AC/defense scores static. Unless they loose a piece of armor. Newer players don't care about being caught flat footed, attacks of opportunity, bonuses and penalties for concealment, speed, encumbrance and adjacent "squares". They just want to roll their dice , add their bonuses and see if they hit. The rest of that is gibberish to a new(younger) player.

7)Also newer players sometimes can't figure out why your caster level doesn't match your character level.
To them it makes for sense if at first level you cast first level spells. At second level you cast first and second level spells, and so on until at twentieth level you can cast twentieth level spells.

Now my requests/suggestions are looking at it from the POV of players I've had that either grew up on video games or had little exposure to fantasy films and books. Most of my new players aren't just new to the hobby, but many are also new to the whole fantasy genre.

Another thing I'd like to have in a basic/introductory set is a single book with everything from character creation, DMing, and basic monsters in it. Honestly, the cheap digest sized books like Essentials would also be appreciated. It is so much nicer to have a book that you can stick in your jacket pocket, instead of lugging around a computer to read pdfs or carrying 600 pg books.

As a matter of fact an introductory set that came with a simple map, a few tokens, a digest sized PHB and a digest sized rulebook/bestiary for the GM would be well worth $25.

I'm looking for a RPG that rivals DnD/PFRPG in awesomeness and fun!

I haven't found anything that lives up to that level, but with that being said I do really enjoy Starblazer Adventures, Hollow Earth Expedition, Mutants & Masterminds(DC adventures), Monte Cooks World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu d20 and the d20 Modern line.

I got the RC and HotFL and though it will never replace Pathfinder as my game of choice, they made me warm up to 4e. My original 4e books will likely continue to gather dust on my gaming shelf, but I foresee Essentials getting some table time. I taught my daughter to play using these books and we both had fun.

So I finally got Essentials, and I'm torn.

I'm one of those people that did not care for 4e as it was originally released and I personally like the Essentials products much better. Of course that is just my opinion.

I got the RC and HotFL books and have enjoyed reading them. You'll have to pry my Pathfinder books from my cold dead hands to make me stop playing, but at least now I am willing to play the occasional 4e game too. So I think that Essentials did what it was supposed to. It got some of us that turned away from 4e to give it a second chance, and I think the new books are much better for new players. So to me they are a success.

I've been running Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Golarion and a some homebrew campaign with Pathfinder so, the backwards compatibility is the primary reason I bought it.
If it had not been compatible I probably would have just stuck with 3.5 and the retro-clones. Like most 3.5 players I had enough books to keep me playing 3.5 for decades, but it is nice to have new material to use.

It will be out February of next year.

Awesome, thanks.

Berselius wrote:

Maybe you could make a feature on Paizo.com where a person (who bought the 3.5 version) could just input the numerical part of their 3.5 version book's bar code and then Paizo.com would take a minute or two to verify that it's valid then allow them to download or purchase the PATHFINDER version of the book either free or at a discount? Would that work Jamester?

It wouldn't, because the numerical code on a book's bar code is the same number for every book; it's not a unique number on each book. It's not a serial number. So someone could just go online or find the book's bar code number anywhere and then get a free PDF of the new book just by typing it in.

There's really no way around the fact that folks are going to have to buy the book again if they really want the updated info, unfortunately. And part of this book's goal IS to make money for Paizo.

Although I believe we're looking at pricing the PDF of the book pretty aggressively.

I haven't been on the boards or site for a while. Is there any release date for the updated Campaign Setting?

I'd buy the current CS edition in pdf if it was cheaper and then I'd buy the new edition in hardcover and pdf. I just can afford to pay $30+ for the same basic book, even if there are an added 68 pages and revised info.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Anyone can have a change of heart, even if they do suffer from foot-in-mouth syndrome. After all, weren't these previous comments that people are referring to made before the finalized PFRPG core book was even released. I mean, no one was sure what the sales of the new book were going to be like, least of all the 3pp's.

I don't mind a change of heart. Anyone can have that. I DO MIND when you attempt revisionist history on something you know isn't true.

I agree. I was a fan of Goodman products until the multiple instances of "foot-in-mouth syndrome" turned me away. A company's attitude makes a big difference in who I support. Which is really a shame, as they put out good products.

(There is a fairly large article, which I helped with, Erik Mona managed to muscled into the Dragon Annual d20 Special if you want more support for the existing game.)
...
And, I'm thrilled every time I hear anyone is still playing the old game.

I have and regularly use that Dragon Annual.

We still regularly play the game and even though in my new group there are only two WoT fans, everyone likes the setting. I've dropped it into more than a couple dimension jumping games that I have ran in the past as well. Other than the Eberron CS and the Dragonlance CS, the WoT setting is still probably one of my most used 3.x books and I own quite a few of them.

I still would like to see if the Jordan estate would be willing to let Paizo revise the setting for Pathfinder. Especially now that the series is coming to an end and there are quite a few events that have happened since the initial release way back when.

BTW, thanks for the informative post.

I'll concede that the One Power did seem a bit off, but it isn't unworkable. I don't think the faults in the game were d20 specific, but more than likely that WotC was trying to push so many different products out the door, at that time, that they didn't take the time to really work on it. I'm not saying they did a bad job, but it could have been better.

Which is why I would like to see it done by a group like Paizo. Although I would not be opposed to a HEX version. That is probably my number 2 favorite system. I would prefer a d20 version with a different take on the magic system.

@ Delthos
You really should get back into the series. The last couple of books Jordan wrote before he died did get a little dull in places, but the newest book, that was written using his notes, is excellent. It is probably in the top 3 as far as my favorites in the series go. I just finished it a few weeks ago and can't wait for the next 2 books.

My group and I actually enjoyed the WotC produced Wheel of Time setting/game. Unfortunately the support was short lived, only one 2 books in total. Currently we convert the old stuff to Pathfinder when we feel the urge to play that setting, but it isn't the same as having an official book.
I was wondering if doing a release for Pathfinder is in anyway a possibility? I honestly don't know what is entailed when it comes to licensed products, so I feign ignorance if this is an endeavor that is too big for Paizo. Still if it is a possibility it would be nice to have an official PFRPG Wheel of Time product with updated info.

I can't say what the future hold, but as of right now I'd support this project.

While I freely admit I'll probably buy whatever they make, I still vote for a superhero or Rifts style setting.

Since Bestiary II already has a table of contents...

THEMED MONSTER BOOKS. The TSR tradition of "Here's a pile of random monsters, enjoy" does zilch for me. Theme them on game-mechanical concerns or setting concerns or tie them together with a loose story or a faction or home plane or environment or WHATEVER.

I just want to be able to look at the spine of the book and say, "Oh, Bestiary of Hell is probably the book where I'd find Xerfylstyxes because they live in Hell" rather than "Wait, did I read that in MM2 or MM4?"

A themed monster book would be ideal. Definitely something I'd buy and use.

I haven't bought the old Golarian setting because it hasn't been updated. I have been hoping that the setting would be revised for the Pathfinder rules. That's when I'll buy a copy.

So basically my gnome alchemist character would have been out (tinker)
My gnome sorcerer would be out (tinker), and my gnome bard would be out (tinker) remind me not to join your table. I love tinker gnomes, I spend hours coming up with inventions for them, drawing (pseudo-b.s.) schematics and maxing crafts to create them. The gnome inventor is one of my favorite archetypes to play always with new inventions each time, my bard was gonna have a dart launching flute, my alchemist had all sorts of slings and crossbows designed around delivering alchemical death (way before I found 3.5 equivalents of my inventions) and my battle socerer had steam powered weaponry. I actually find golarion gnomes somewhat bland, I loved dragonlance gnomes luckily the obsessive trait usually allows me to talk my DM into letting my gnomes obsess over gadgetry, but apparently I'd be banned at your table.

You personally would not be banned, but the gnomes likely would. To be fair if you came to me with an intriguing character concept and that PC happened to be gnome I would more than likely let it go.

My problem is that most people seem to play tinker gnomes as "absent minded professor" type of characters, or they played a character that was much more suited for a steam-punk campaign than D&D. The race got stuck in a stereotype, much like Kender, and I just couldn't stand it, so I banned them. The ban was more to keep ridiculous stereotypes out of my games, not to punish creative or good players.
Currently my group is on notice to quit playing dumb brute half-orcs, or they will get banned. If I have to create each and every campaign with new characters every game, the least they can do is not play the exact same type of characters over and over. If someone wants to always play half-orc fighters thats cool with me, though I would prefer some diversity. What I can't stand is every single one of them being an idiot.
I'm not trying to be mean to the players, but they would complain if all of my NPCs were cookie cutter stereotypes. I figure they shouldn't get a way with boring, "safe" characters.

That's where I think Paizo would totally excel at a release of a game such as this.

Release the toolbox, and then release a variety of genre treatments. I'm not talking huge 256-page books, but a series of 96-128 page supplements to the core "Pathfinder Modern" rules to lay out a framework in various genres (which could also serve to gauge interest in some Modern campaign settings...).

I think I mentioned something similar in an earlier post, but I still agree with the idea. Honestly we have the Pathfinder core rulebook and wouldn't need another, even for modern. Each setting/genre could be released as 100 page book with everything you need, classes, races, genre specific skills, weapons, spells etc. Why would we need another rulebook?

Although I would not be opposed to campaign settings in different genres. The books could be a little bigger, 200-300pg, but still would only need setting info, classes, and other genre/setting specific material. The rules would be exactly as they are in the core PfRPG book. Spells, saving throws, AC, HP, skills, feats, combat and pretty much everything else would work the same no matter the setting.

If they decide to go with the campaign setting idea I vote for a Rifts style setting. Although a steampunk setting would be kind of interesting too.

Really? I thought it was in the state it was in b/c it was treated like a red-haired step-child by WotC. They also opted to run with "D&D in Modern Times" as their intro setting which certainly didn't help highlight it's strengths & differences over D&D.

I agree with you completely. The modern D&D idea was a poor way to sell what could have been a really good system. They would have been better served by showing us what could actually be done with the system, the potential, instead of how to move our D&D game into the modern world. I also agree with the fact they have tended to treat it as the "red-haired step-child". It didn't hit the ground running, but I don't think it is completely the system's fault. I will give them credit for producing all of the material they did for a system they acted like they only halfway believed in, but it wasn't enough.

.......

One question, though for those who aren't fans of the D20 Modern classes:
Does you issue/dissatisfaction stem from disliking the mechanics of the classes or from the names?

Actually a little of both. But I will admit it is primarily with the vague character roles. Many of the players I have had over the past 10 years have been younger, less experienced or completely new to gaming and they want a character concept to be clear. To be honest if it takes more than 30 minutes to make a character the younger players get bored... and 30 min is pushing the boundaries. They are interested in the game play, which they love. They are use to playing video games where everything is well defined and it is much quicker to get to the game. If they want to play a fighter, they want a fighter class. If they want to play a wizard, they want a wizard class... etc. They want default characters, so to speak. It may suck a but it is the reality of many gamers, especially the younger generation.

Plus time is such a precious commodity for most of us and game time tends to be short and less frequent than in years gone by. Even experienced players in my groups don't want to spend an hour of game time trying to figure out the best way to build the character they want.

These are also the reasons I can not get my group to play Hero or other kitchen sink systems. It has gotten to the point I don't even have an interest in those games anymore. I applaud and in some ways envy those that have the time to spend on their games/characters, but I and the rest of my group just don't have it. I guess we could make time, but I'm not willing to lose my job or get divorced over gaming. 15 years ago... maybe, now not so much.

Even in Pathfinder/3e we tended to ignore or under use whole mechanics just to save time. Feats are a perfect example. We tend to only give characters feats that can serve their purpose when given and never or rarely have to be remembered during game-play, such as toughness, silent/still spell or maybe a proficiency of some kind.

I loved the concept of Rifts. I loved the setting. I loved the character...

I'm the same way. I love everything about the Palladium settings(Rifts, Heroes Unlimted, Dead Reign, Beyond the Supernatural) except the rules. It is just such a pain to create a character and run the games. If not for the clunky, out of date rules, I have to admit the Palladium system would probably be my default game system. The setting material is some of the best out there. If only they would streamline the system.

Which is why Paizo could/should do what Palladium, can't/won't and give us an even better version.

BTW I always have converted MDC to SDC. Mega Damage is kinda silly, with only a few exceptions.

Lupins are the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast. We can't touch them. We can, of course, do a different dog-faced race, but they'd have a different name and different stats and different flavor text. They would not be Lupins.

If we can have dog-faced people, which I'm not opposed to BTW, can I have an official Pathfinder living construct player race?

I'd even be willing to say pretty please.

Kender were and are vermin to me ;)

Too many players I knew took them as an excuse to be monumentally annoying. Same with Krynn Gnomes.

-Weylin

I'm not fond of Kender myself and you are correct no one ever played them as anything other than extremely annoying characters.

Like I said the PfRPG gnomes are not my favorite, because they remind of the Kender, but I still like them better than the older version of gnomes. Which is why I lifted the ban... for now.
Fortunately no one in my current group ever wants to play a gnome. They all tend to play more exotic races, which is ok with me.

Just to point out again James, your audience is no longer strictly Golarion Adventure Path subscribers.

As one of those new customers, I don't want to be relegated to a second class citizen because I don't buy your AP lines.

I can't say I disagree.

I never have played in the Golarion setting and honestly don't plan on it. I own waaaay too many books as it is and would rather keep up with the core, class & race books rather than trying to get involved with an already established setting. Now this may change if a brand new setting comes out.
This is why my group played Eberron almost exclusively rather than trying to play catchup with all the Forgotten Realms books. Plus we did really like the Eberron setting and only recently made an exception for Dragonlance because I got a copy at Gen Con for $5 a couple of years ago. We also played in that setting in our 2e days and have read some of the books so we are familiar with it. But if I had not got my $5 copy, we would have stuck with our homebrew and Eberron games.

Of course this whole race/campaign setting isn't that big of a deal for us as we only want to see an "official" construct race. That way we can keep our Pathfinder/Eberron campaign going by using "official" Pathfinder material. All of the other alternate races we want, except lizardfolk, are stated in the bestiary.

This is the best bestiary I own. I love how the monster/pc races are easy to use as encounters or characters. I haven't touched my other four 3e monster manuals since I got this book.

Sidenote: Golarion/PFRPG is the only setting and system to ever make me want to play a gnome. I hate the illegtimate children of dwarves and halflings as i see them in most settings.

I've always hated RPG versions of Gnomes and banned them from my games for years. The only exceptions to my no gnomes rule have been if the players made them reeeeaaally interesting, and they had to look like garden gnomes. They also could not be tinkerers or inventors. I hated that.

The gnome ban was lifted when PfRPG was released, they still aren't my favorite race, but I like them much better than before. Though I do admit they seem a little like more colorful Kender to me now, but still more likable than other versions of the race.

This has been my impression, as well. Of the available Foci, I tend to view Battle as the most powerful. Even so, the reason it's powerful is because it better compensates for the lack of spell casting oomph for the Oracle. Part of it is the Sorc progression, which delays each spell level. Part of it is the weakness of many of the Cleric spells, particularly spell levels 1-4.

I'm in favor of the idea of adding Cure or Inflict for spell levels 1-4 automatically. I'm up in the air about giving automatic access to the Mass spells, however. Giving an additional 1 spell known at all levels would potentially be a good idea, as well.

My group actually wanted to see a less melee oriented class. The comment I got was if they wanted a combat ready divine spellcaster they'll just play a cleric or even a druid. They wanted a more "powerful" divine spellcaster, with less of a melee focus. Which is why my group wants a spell boost of some kind(more bonus spells, spells per day, or more spells known).

I feel like the class has a massive clusterf*ck of little abilities. In terms of bookkeeping and usefulness, I feel like most players are better off with less, more powerful abilities.

I definitely agree. Too much to keep track of.

I don't like having oaths and orders separated. It just feels wrong. I think just having orders would suffice, beef them up and let the edicts of the order can take the place of the oaths.

I would like to see the class have a clairvoyant type class feature no matter the foci

I think that would be an interesting addition to the class. A once per day/week or even just a random, spontaneous "vision" would be a great way for the DM to inject hints, red herrings or new plot hooks into the game that would not seem shoehorned by the DM. Since giving every PC/player a turn in the spotlight is the DM's responsibility, having something built into a character's class would make that easier, especially for less experienced players.

Of the two play-test classes, I definitely favor the oracle. However, I do think the class would work a bit better as a divine spell-caster with very limited melee weapons and armor, but more spells. The divine sorcerer concept, with foci and curses taking the place of a sorcerer's bloodlines, would be much more interesting than a Unitarian cleric.

As it plays now it feels like a non-denominational cleric with a few tweaks. It needs to feel more like you are playing a class that is tangentially related to clerics, but still be distinct on its own.
I want having a cleric and oracle in my group to feel like two separate classes rather than feeling like there are two clerics.

We've still got a few more sessions to play with the Oracle, but that is my first impression.

In my game this past weekend, the Oracle was well received. The focus and curse led to several enthusiastic discussions about combinations, but everyone agreed the class(4th level in our game) is underpowered.
I felt that the class could use a few more spells known and spells per day, but some more revelations could be useful as well.

If and when we do something like this, I can pretty much guarantee that we will NOT be keeping the "Fast Hero, Strong Hero, etc." setup. It's a lot more fun to have character classes whose names actually mean something, like "Wizard" or "Rogue."

Also... the wealth system has to go.

I'm relatively certain that if we do a modern or sci-fi game that it'll be closer to Pathfinder's rules than d20 Modern's was to D&D, in other words. Or if not, it'll be something COMPLETELY different.

But yeah... Fast Heroes are boring.

I agree completely. The fast, smart hero classes annoyed my group to no end. We want classes that "mean something". I don't want it to be "closer to the Pathfinder's rules", I want the same system. I, like many other fans, have adapted rules to play in various settings so I know that professional game designers could make it work.

I'm curious.

Please choose one of the following. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a little bit on your thoughts on the following question, if you would.

1) I am interested in a "Modern" Pathfinder RPG because:

A) I specifically prefer the rules conceits of d20 Modern (Fast Hero, Smart Hero, etc., talent trees, other mechanics stuff).

B) I am excited by the idea of a "Pathfinder" Modern RPG, regardless of mechanics.

I would prefer something that does not change, but adds to the Pathfinder system. I want the ability to create a mixed genre game, to drop a character from the PfRPG, into which ever setting I want without having to modify anything. I want the same magic system in all settings. New variants can be added for different classs, but I don't want an all new system for a different setting. As I said before I can't stand the d20 modern class system and I do not want a repeat of that.

As for settings I would love to see a Rifts style game. Palladium has an incredible setting and I have yet to see any system recreate the epic feel without using a "tool box" system like Hero or Gurps. I want to be able to play pulp, sci-fi, apocalyptic, fantasy, and horror settings with the same rules without having to create everything myself.

I would love to see a Rifts style game using the Pathfinder rules.The idea of dimensional rifts were used in at least one d20 game, in MC's WoD, throw in some robotic armor, cyborgs, space ships, a few alien races, make it completely compatible with PfRPG and you have a setting that could allow for nearly any style of game. d20 Modern tried, but didn't quite pull it off. One of the things my group didn't like about d20 modern was the lack of actual classes at 1st level. None of us liked the fast hero, smart hero, that just feels too generic. Plus we almost never use prestige classes, so waiting till higher levels to be the class you want to be kind of put most of my group off of the game.
I spend a small fortune on Rifts books and if I my group could play the same type of games using our default system, I could save a lot of money.
I'd also like to see a zombie, supers, steampunk and pulp setting. My primary concern would be that any other genre would have to the same rules and not just be "compatible". I want to be able to use materials from PfRPG product X in product Y without any conversion or modification. If I want to create a mixed genre game where one player is a modern super, another is a fantasy fighter, some one is an alien bounty hunter and someone else is a cyborg, they can all work under exactly the same rules. I would like the rules and power levels of the PC's to be as equal as possible.
I know that if anyone can make this work it is Paizo.
It just occurred to me that the other settings, classes, etc could be released as a subscription like the PF Companions and Adventure Paths. A quarterly line of 100 pg books called Pathfinder Alternatives, or something much cooler, could be much better than actual full blown rule books. Each issue could focus on certain a certain setting, you could subscribe or only buy the issues that pertain to the settings you want.

Erik Mona wrote:

We're all worried about rules bloat. What is your opinion of new classes and races?

Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?

Discuss.

I would prefer to see new classes and races and my group has never been big on the prestige classes.

I'd like to see an updated Golarian Campaign Setting.

Thanks. For some reason I really like mixed races in my games. My players seem to prefer them as well. Right now we have a Gobling, Half-orc, Half-Ogre, and Half Elf in the group, along with 2 humans.
I've got several other mixed races, and a couple of classes I'm working on and I will put them up when I think they are done.

Goblings
Goblings are the unfortunate offspring of a Goblin and a Halfling, more often than not the result of a non-consensual union. Goblings generally become people pleasers that feel the need to continually prove their worth in an attempt to gain the acceptance and trust of those around them. Goblings don't like to be seen as weak and often show an incredible amount of determination, refusing to accept failure. Because of their seemingly unfaltering determination Goblings tend to earn the respect of those close to them.
As a result of their Goblin heritage Goblings tend to be less even-tempered and more prone to violence than their Halfling kin.

Physical Description: Both genders of Goblings stand between 3-4 feet tall. Their heads are slightly larger than those of a Halfling with a backward sloping forehead, which often seems somewhat disproportional to their slender bodies. Goblings have a broad nose, and wide mouth, some have small fangs. Their ears, which are proportional to their heads, are pointed and somewhat larger than those of a Halfling. A Gobling’s arms are longer than normal,hanging almost to their knees, and slightly shorter than a Goblin’s but longer than a Halfling’s. Their feet are undeniably those of a Halfling, broad and covered with brown or black hair. Their Goblin heritage gives their skin a tint that can be yellowish, light brown or green. Usually their skin color can be easily hidden beneath a cloak and is barely noticeable from a distance.
A Gobling’s hair is either brown or black and heir eyes are brown, or yellow in color.

Society: Goblings have no culture of their own and tend to adhere to the traditions of the culture in which they were raised. They can generally pass themselves off Halflings unless they are put under close scrutiny. Goblings raised by Halflings tend to be fairly well tolerated and generally treated with kindness by their easygoing kin. Usually this kindness is the result of pity as Goblings are seen as creatures that suffer from an illness or disability. Goblings raised by Halflings are allowed to participate in many parts of their society, but are generally treated as simple minded or like children and not taken very seriously. This generally motivates a Gobling to continually try and prove their worth, to others and to themselves. Due to their more violent nature Goblings can gain some amount of respect in Halfling society as warriors, but are never given any positions of great authority.
Goblings are generally not raised in Goblin society, as Goblins do not think highly of their Gobling offspring and tend to kill them while they are still infants. Those that do survive become slaves while a select few may become vicious warriors in order to survive. Their ferocity gains them some minor amount of respect, but they continually have to watch those around them for signs of treachery, as other Goblins will continually plot their demise. Those raised in Goblin societies tend to adhere to the traditions of their society and are usually no different in nature than the rest of their tribe.

Relations: Goblings are usually more accepted by other races than Half-orcs due to their less threatening stature, and are often under estimated by the larger races. Halfling raised Goblings have a more positive view of the other races and life in general, than their Goblin raised brethren. Goblings understand that they are different and are prone to feel isolated and out of place, even among friends. Goblings make strong attachments and are fiercely loyal to those they feel truly accept them. This attachment often results in a Gobling that is ready and willing to lay down their life, or to take some one else’s, to protect those they care about and consider friends.

Alignment and Religion: While Goblings can be of any alignment, most strive to be good, but not necessarily lawful. While trying to protect their friends and those close to them a Gobling will show little regard for any alignment or ideology, even if that means committing an evil or unlawful act, which they see as justifiable. Goblings tend to honor the same gods as those who raised them, but have been known to adopt the beliefs of their close friends or others that they respect.
Adventurers: Many Goblings suffer from the same wanderlust as their Halfling kin, while others just want to find a place in the world where they can belong. This often leads them to adventure whether they are looking for it or not.

Male Names: Prataal, Trin, Garen, Kelan, Bringam, Shilos
Female Names: Aria, Rya, Hila, Meria, Nika, Zora

Gobling Racial Traits
+2 Dexterity, +2Charisma, -2 Intelligence: Much like a Halfing, Goblings are nimble and strong willed, but suffer from the simple minded nature of their Goblin heritage.

Small: Goblings are Small creatures and gain a +1 sice bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty on their Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.

Slow Speed: Goblings have a base speed of 20 feet

Darkvision: Goblings can see in the dark up to 60 ft.

Determination: Goblings get a +1 racial bonus on all Will and Fortitude saving throws.

People Pleaser: Goblings receive a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy skill checks

Keen Senses: Goblings receive a +2 racial bonus on Perceptions skill checks

Weapon Familiarity: A Gobling can treat any weapon with either the word “Halfling” or the word “Goblin”, but not both, in the name as a martial weapon.

Languages: Goblins can speak Common and Halfling.(Those raised in Goblin communities can choose to know Common and Goblin instead). Goblings with a high intelligence score can choose from the following, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, and Goblin

I've just ran my second game using the Pathfinder Core book and the group couldn't be happier. I like shiny new books as much as the next gamer, but I have no desire to see another revision anytime in the near future. 10 years is a good amount of time between editions.

Just wanted to say the generosity on the paizo boards is inspiring. Makes me proud to be a paizo fan.

I'd like to see Paizo do a campaign setting or even a source book that has something to do with Dragons and Lances. Maybe they could hire weis and hickman to work on it, I hear they have some experience with both of those.

I would buy a psionics book, I used it in 3.5, but I could live without it for a while. I'm sticking with my Aztec/Mayan campaign setting request for now, but a really good oriential setting would also be nice.
I also want more classes. I want necromancers to be a class all their own.

3.5 is my system of choice and Paizo has consistently put out great products, also it is 3.5 compatible. If anyone can "fix" 3.5 it is Paizo.

Personally I want to see an Egyptian, Native American, and/or Aztec/Mayan setting.
There was Maztica for AD&D, nothing for 3.e and Maztica was eliminated from the FR in 4e. I don't want conquistadors or anything like that, just a setting for one or all of those, mostly the Aztec/Mayan. Religion, culture, weapons/tools and monsters... lots of monsters. I have no doubt that Paizo could do a rockin job on any one of these settings and I would definitely buy it. I'm sticking with the Patfinder/3.5, tried 4e but it's not for me, and that's what I want Paizo to make.

I have to admit that I like 4e but I am very impressed with Pathfinder. I hope Paizo keeps up the good work and the system builds enough steam to become a real name in the RPG industry. I have the free versions, but plan to buy the core book as well.