|
So the beta release is around the corner and the basic is already know. But as mental exercise we can go over the basic and think what we would want of brand "new" rules/material ?
Well, personally i don´t think new monsters as interesting as i am subscriber and receive a good flux of monsters (at least for first book). DM content is not rule system bound so no need to expand from the start.
What i really really want is new classes/mechanics for the new rules. A Pathfinder Swarshbuckler (forgetting the CW one) would be nice, new prestige classes with true PRESTIGE, new uses for skills, psionics, alternate rules and i don´t know, something that blows my head like many things Paizo done before.
|
I would prefer nothing beyond the core book and a monster manual. Pathfinder RPG is supposed to replace the core books, not obsolete my either 3e collection.
If we need new classes, I prefer they were Golarian related and thus, in a Golarian related supplement.
I want Paizo to remained focused on Golarion, not branch away from it to try to float their own d20 system line.
Amen. Making a solid core is the most important thing.
Expanding the core a BIT with solid feats is OK (and needed for classes like Fighter), but I don't think we need Prestige Classes or 'Complete Everything'. Save that for setting-specific sourcebooks or a hardback "Complete Pathfinder Arcana" eventually. (I'd LOVE to see Pathfinder'ized Binders and Samurai... in another book)
Pathfinder is ALREADY Golarion-specific enough (with the deity list).
It's better for the system to be open enough that other publishers might want use the PF/3.75 ruleset with their own game settings (& Classes/ PrCs/ etc.)
|
I see. I guess i overreacted then. But when Pathfinder RPG really catches on someday it might want to create something new.
I really like swarshbucklers and samurais and etc.. The commonplace classes that were poorly made by Wizards and i would love a rebirth of them.
I'm in this camp as well. Not to say that I want *everything* from 3.5 replaced, but a neat swashbuckler class, or at least variant fighter rules that allowed for this type of fighter to exist would be the baseline that I would hope for.
If they're going to go add more classes, etc. I would hope that there wouldn't be as many prestige classes as there were in 3.5, or at least, make the prestige classes very flavourful, fitting in the Golarion world if need be (ex: the Spherewalker (?) from the Desna article was great!).
Basically, the flow of stuff we're getting now is fantastic. Maybe put a little bit more in the Pathfinder Companions, and I believe that would be all I could ask for.
|
|
I think when we get a Guide to Tian Xia we'll be getting Ninjas and Samurai. I think Swashbucklers would be a lot easier to make in PF than in 3.5 due to the Rogue talents (especially getting Weapon Finesse at 2nd level instead of having to wait until third).
I'd definitely like to see a Spirit Shaman/Witch class though, druids didn't always seem appropriate for savage species like Gnolls to have.
I'd really like to see a couple of hundred setting books, all with the level of awesome and polish we've come to expect from Paizo. I've no real interest in more classes, feats, new rules or Prestige Classes etc. etc.
A Psionics book, I would buy, but not a Complete X. Give us fluff!
Peace,
tfad
I think that it's inevitable that we'll see some supplements for Pathfinder, but based off comments from the Pazioans here on the boards, I'd guess they'd be crunch lite and fluff heavy. I for one am content with that. I'd rather see Paizo, and Pathfinder focus on Golarion after the release of the new rules and monster books, anything crunch wise that comes out should be at least relative to that setting. The last thing I need is another book filled with 20 some odd prestige classes and 30 new feats. The Pathfinder rules are going to be OGL, and I would be surprised to see many 3rd party folks support it. I'd wager some of the stuff those folks come up with will be rule supplemental.
|
|
I'd definitely like to see a Spirit Shaman/Witch class though, druids didn't always seem appropriate for savage species like Gnolls to have.
Yeah, that would be cool also. I prefer to use an animistic approach to religion in my campaign world, so i prefer Shamans over Priests and i find Druid too Eurocentric (or fantasy-centric) to be a Xamã ....
But i see the problem with the Shaman. It´s a entirely new world having to deal with spirits, so the druid is a look alike shortcut. I call it the incomplete families of classes that i need to play:- Traditional : Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Thief
- Primitive : Barbarian, Shaman, Witch-doctor, Scout
- Holy/Unholy: Paladin, Saint (aka, Favored Soul), Warlock, skipped
- Celtic: Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer, Bard
- Psionic: Psychic Warrior, skipped, Psion, Monk
- Oriental: Samurai, Shukenja, Wu Jen, Ninja
- NPCS: Warrior, Adept, skipped, Expert
But more fluffy material would be cool too, seeing what had been done to Hindu Mythology recently in the AP, i wonder if someday African Mythology would receive same treatment. Beside the Eshus from Changeling: The Dreaming, African mythology receive so little "screen time" in RPG.