So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without an XXXXXX class option?

[Secret Wizard]

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a fully INT-based (Un)Monk archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a Rageless Barbarian archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a juicy late-level Gunslinger feat to encourage single-class builds?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without Alchemist discoveries that grant them outsider-binding abilities?

[VoodistMonk]

If it's that big of a deal, just allow either of the 3.5 feats that converts Monks from Wisdom to Intelligence:

King Fu Genius and/or Carmendine Monk.

[PossibleCabbage]

Spontaneous casing druid archetype.

Witches, Paladins, Rangers, Investigator, and Magi are all prepared spellcasters with at least one spontaneous archetype; Wizards share a list with Sorcerers (and the Arcanist); Clerics share a list with Oracles; but only the Druid, Shaman, and Warpriest lack a "fully spontaneous caster option or sister class that uses the same list."

Sure, the Hunter casts spontaneously from the Druid list but Hunters never get Siege of Trees.

[avr]

While there are a couple of feats related to casting surreptitiously, there's no class or archetype which especially uses or builds on them. Why don't we have a Secret Wizard?

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

You should Kickstart a "Stuff Paizo Never Got Around To In 1E" book, Wiz!

[Gorbacz]

Yes.

[Dasrak]

I'm blown away that to this day we still don't have good support for a Fighter that dual wields a longsword/shortsword combo...

[Isabelle Lee]

In official first-party material? Yes, probably, barring a surprise in the last couple of books.

That said, not every writer is planning to abandon Pathfinder First Edition immediately (or at all). ^_^

[Meirril]

Secret Wizard wrote:

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a fully INT-based (Un)Monk archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a Rageless Barbarian archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a juicy late-level Gunslinger feat to encourage single-class builds?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without Alchemist discoveries that grant them outsider-binding abilities?

A Monk archetype based on int would be very easy to do. It doesn't even really need any discussion.

Removing Rage from a Barbarian just make the class...not a barbarian? The idea I came up with is sort of interesting. An Occult inspired Barbarian: Psychic Rager. All benefits and penalties of Rage are removed, and instead the PR gains Kineticist abilities that can be used while raging (4 + con mod), and anything that affects rage duration affects this ability. At first level the barbarian gains burn, elemental focus and kinetic blast. A PR is always considered a kinetisist of their level when raging.

The PR does not gain Gather Power. While leveling the PR takes either an infusion or utility wild power that a kineticist of his level would qualify for in place of Rage powers. Remove Trap Sense, instead the PR gains Expanded Element at 6, 12 and 18 (yes, they get it faster and more than Kinetisists). Greater Rage and Tireless Rage are replaced by a 1 reduction in all burn costs while raging. Mighty Rage becomes Elemental Fount: PR may use his Kinetisist abilities without raging, and gets a 1 reduction in all burn costs at all times. So at 20th that is 3 burn reduction while raging.

Gunslinger: I think its better to introduce early feats that scale with Gunslinger level.

Guns Are Easy(Combat) prereq: Gunslinger. If Gunslinger is a favored class for you, take your races favored bonus for free. If you have Fast Learner you gain +1 hp and 1 skill point as well. Also whenever you gain an ability that makes you select a type of firearm, you may select two types of firearm to apply it to.

Gunslinger's Correction(Combat) You may add your Gunslinger level to the range increment of Firearms you wield. Only increments in multiples of 5 have any effect. This ability stacks with other abilities that extend the firearm's range.

Gunslinger's Resolve(Combat) prereq: Gunslinger. When the Gunslinger spends a grit point to perform a deed, the Gunslinger may reroll any one dice by spending a grit point. Only one such reroll may be used per round. Deeds that are reduced to 0 grit points do not qualify for this ability.

Gunslinger's Ire(Combat) prereq: Gunslinger 4th level. When you are targeted with an ability you can activate this ability to gain a save bonus equal to your current grit pool. You may use this ability (Gunslinger level/2) times per day.

Gunslinger's Vengence(Combat) prereq: Gunslinger's Ire. When Gunslinger's Ire is used, you may spend 1 grit point to gain an Attack of Opportunity against the controller of the triggering ability.

Alchemist stuff:
Binder's Discovery: prereq: Alchemist 10. Add Magic Circle Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil, Dimensional Anchor, and Lesser Planar Binding to your formula book. The Magic Circle spells may only be used to cast the Special Diagram version of the spell. Dimensional Anchor can only be used to bolster the Magic Circle spells created by the alchemist. Instead of creating extracts, the preparation of these formula result in a ritual kit used to cast these spells. The ritual kit can only be used by an alchemist with this discovery.

Greater Binder's Discovery: prereq: Binder's Discovery, Alchemist 12. Add Planar Binding to the alchemist's formula book. At 15th level add Greater Planar Binding and Trap the Soul. Trap the Soul may only be used on creatures trapped in Magic Circles created by the alchemist.

Grand Binder's Discovery: This is a Grand Discovery. The HD limit of Greater Planar Binding is removed.

[Meirril]

And we're wrapping up 1E without any rules for consuming monsters. I'm actually thinking about this. I know, its weird.

[Set]

Dasrak wrote:

I'm blown away that to this day we still don't have good support for a Fighter that dual wields a longsword/shortsword combo...

Or a decent feat option to make a crossbow competitive with a longbow. A longbow is one Martial Weapon proficiency more than the 'Simple' crossbow, so a single feat should be able to make up the difference, without making them identical (different but equal, being the goal).

The iconics, whether longsword-and-short-sword using Valeros, or crossbow using Harsk, or oversized weapon using Amiri, could definitely have gotten some mechanical support.

But as for class options I'd have loved to see, a Monk or Ninja option that has the 'faux Asian' stripped away (no more kama or nun-chuks) and can be slotted into a culture that doesn't have contact with not-really-Japan. Keep the mechanics, get rid of the 'exotic' weapons (or reflavor them, make 'shuriken' into 'throwing spikes' or 'hex nails' or something), call ki 'focus' or something and go with it.

[Kalindlara]

Meirril wrote:

Removing Rage from a Barbarian just make the class...not a barbarian?

That depends on how one defines "removing rage". I was - and still am, really - a huge fan of the variant barbarian in 3.5's Player's Handbook II that, instead of gaining activated "rages", had constant rage-like benefits that increased as their current hit points fell lower and lower. ^_^

[Slyme]

The closer we get to 2E the more I feel like Paizo doesn't actually care about Pathfinder, and never really did.

If they did, they might have actually attempted to fix some stuff that has been well known issues with thousands of posts on the forums. Maybe actually put out FAQs and errata for all of their products. Or maybe even playtest things and run them through a round or 2 of internal quality control before publishing them.

[PossibleCabbage]

Slyme wrote:

The closer we get to 2E the more I feel like Paizo doesn't actually care about Pathfinder, and never really did.

So here's the thing- Paizo has a relatively small number of people available to work on Pathfinder. Each of those people has a finite number of hours in the day. So what is a better use of their time- to make new Pathfinder stuff, or to fix old Pathfinder stuff. I'm not even talking about the new edition, I would always prefer more RPG line books than "time spent on the forums resolving the Bardic Masterpieces question."

Certainly there are thorny or confusing rules interactions unresolved from PF1, but for the most part those are things that individual tables can and do resolve in a way that works for them; and that is ultimately what matters.

So I've never needed a FAQ about "hey, how does Shield Gauntlet Style work- are gauntlets weapons" since I can ask the same question to whoever is GMing and we can figure it out. In terms of "what Paizo produces" we're much better off for more books than more FAQs.

[Aboleth Sticks]

I'm still waiting for the barbarian paladin hybrid class.

[Slyme]

That is great for home games, where people have the freedom to house rule anything they want...but when one of the central parts of your company and it's flagship RPG is an organized play foundation that is 100% RAW...that just doesn't fly.

I would rather have 1-2 properly tested, proofread, and updated books than a dozen books full of conflicting rules, unbalanced abilities, typos and other errors that they will never, ever, get around to fixing.

If I have to go back and fix everything myself, what do I even need Paizo for? I could just write my own rules and not have to give them money for half finished products.

[PossibleCabbage]

Slyme wrote:

That is great for home games, where people have the freedom to house rule anything they want...but when one of the central parts of your company and it's flagship RPG is an organized play foundation that is 100% RAW...that just doesn't fly.

Isn't PFS itself just a set of house rules and PFS can and does make rulings on this stuff independently all the time? Like why not just be more aggressive in campaign clarifications instead?

[Slyme]

If by house rules, you mean rules set by the company that writes the games...I guess.

The whole point of organized play is being able to take 1 character to multiple tables, run by multiple GMs, with the expectation that the rules are consistent and will be the same at any table you play at.

When your rules are unclear or contradictory, that becomes impossible...you can have one GM who thinks rule X means one thing, while a different GM interprets it completely the opposite.

I ran into such a thing just last week...the Constructed Pugilst Brawler archetype says it adds Craft(Weapon) to your list of craft skills, but Brawler gets all Craft skills as part of the class by default, so that archetype is adding a null value. So does that archetype stack with other archetypes which actually do modify your class skills?

I asked 6 PFS GMs how they would rule on it, 5 of them said the archetypes can stack since Constructed Pugilist is not actually modifying your class skills...1 GM said they cannot stack, because the archetype has an entry in the class skills, even though it does not actually do anything...therefore any character designed around those 2 archetypes being able to stack is either 100% fine, or completely goes against PFS rules and cannot even be used.

That is just one example...there are literally hundreds, if not thousands just like it...Paizo (or any game company) needs at least 1 employee whose job is to go through books looking for such errors, or to at least monitor the forums to resolve such issues when they are brought up.

[VoodistMonk]

The real question is: are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a clear and concise logic to wording feats and abilities in a consistent fashion?

You know how spells have always been written in roughly the same format? And said format covers which classes can get access to it, what materials and actions are required to cast it, what it does, and what takes to avoid it.

[Secret Wizard]

avr wrote:

While there are a couple of feats related to casting surreptitiously, there's no class or archetype which especially uses or builds on them. Why don't we have a Secret Wizard?

It's called a Monk. It obscures its spells with a fist on your eyes!

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

You should Kickstart a "Stuff Paizo Never Got Around To In 1E" book, Wiz!

I actually am preparing a 3PP release about the end of 1E... but I'm having a hard time determining the scope of it.

[Melkiador]

I’m a little surprised we never got a more martial summoner. Tradeout most of the spells for some combat feats you can share with the eidolon.

A mounted summoner archetype could have been nice too.

[UnArcaneElection]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Slyme wrote:

The closer we get to 2E the more I feel like Paizo doesn't actually care about Pathfinder, and never really did.

So here's the thing- Paizo has a relatively small number of people available to work on Pathfinder. Each of those people has a finite number of hours in the day. So what is a better use of their time- to make new Pathfinder stuff, or to fix old Pathfinder stuff. I'm not even talking about the new edition, I would always prefer more RPG line books than "time spent on the forums resolving the Bardic Masterpieces question."

{. . .}

I'd rather have a smaller amount of new stuff, debugged better.

And this problem is not at all unique to small companies. Just look at Microsoft and Apple for examples of very large companies that doesn't debug stuff anywhere near as much as they should, but instead push out more and more.

(Important difference: Paizo doesn't force you to upgrade editions. Microsoft and Apple for all practical purposes do.)

[VoodistMonk]

So long as they pick a format for all further content to be written and stick to it, we will be ok.

Ambiguous, in-direct, INCONSISTENT wording that often comes from multiple sources is completely crap management of your media. It's like the Bible at this point.

Pick a format. And make everyone stick to it, or your stuff isn't going to be included in official anything.

A specific format was created and has been done with spells literally forever ago. Why can't feats and abilities follow something similar?

[deuxhero]

Actual support for Mystic Bolts.

[Ventnor]

Not sure about any of the other stuff, but there is totally a Rage-less Barbarian Archetype.

Behold, the Geminate Invoker!!!

[Arachnofiend]

The last thing I was shocked Paizo hadn't gotten around to doing was a base class martial shapeshifter, and I'm still reeling from getting slapped by that monkey's paw.

[Rosc]

Melkiador wrote:

I’m a little surprised we never got a more martial summoner. Tradeout most of the spells for some combat feats you can share with the eidolon.

A mounted summoner archetype could have been nice too.

The biggest issue (medium sized eidolons, mount evolution tax) is mostly solved by the Eidolon Mount feat. You can ride from level 1, and the class features (like Shield Ally) largely support the style.

The only real problems are lack of combat feats and simple weapon proficiency, which you can kind of fenagle past with race selection.

Of course, light armor and a low fort save mean you're way more vulnerable doing your job than a cavalier or even a magus considering their spell selection.

[Marc Radle]

Many of the classes described in this thread, including a martial shapeshiter, mytic bolt type of class, and spontaneous druid type of caster can be found in:

The New Paths Compendium Expanded Hardcover

There are more than 12 new Pathfinder classes, plus new archetypes, new feats, new spells ... even some new magic items!

If you are looking for a treasure trove of new 1E Pathfinder class material, check the book out!

[UnArcaneElection]

How come we never got a Mime Bard?

And how come we never got the Harrowed Medium we were teased with in the Occult Adventures Playtest?

[avr]

There's a masterpiece for that UAE.

[thistledown]

Never got a class option based on perma-killing Rakshasas... :(

[Rysky]

thistledown wrote:

Never got a class option based on perma-killing Rakshasas... :(

That would be neat.

[Melkiador]

Rysky wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Never got a class option based on perma-killing Rakshasas... :(

That would be neat.

As a Rakshasa, that disturbs me.

[Rysky]

Melkiador wrote:

Rysky wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Never got a class option based on perma-killing Rakshasas... :(

That would be neat.

As a Rakshasa, that disturbs me.

Don't think about that, think of all the rivals you wouldn't have to deal with anymore :3

[GM PDK]

Secret Wizard wrote:

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a fully INT-based (Un)Monk archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a Rageless Barbarian archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a juicy late-level Gunslinger feat to encourage single-class builds?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without Alchemist discoveries that grant them outsider-binding abilities?

I've never wished or yearned for any of these options. Rageless barbarian?! O_O Why?

[GM PDK]

Aboleth Sticks wrote:

I'm still waiting for the barbarian paladin hybrid class.

It already exists: LG/NG Vigilante/Paladin/Barbarian (paladin by day; barbarian by night)

You're welcome.

[Ultrace]

Meirril wrote:

And we're wrapping up 1E without any rules for consuming monsters. I'm actually thinking about this. I know, its weird.

Sorry to hit your old post here, but this just reminded me. Didn't someone around here post something indicating they were working on a sort of monster cookbook, that you could use the parts from various beasts and such to create buffing meals? I remember being very interested in it, but maybe I hallucinated.

[Melkiador]

The celestial bloodline bloodrager is already a bit Paladin/Barbarian.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Isabelle Lee wrote:

In official first-party material? Yes, probably, barring a surprise in the last couple of books.

That said, not every writer is planning to abandon Pathfinder First Edition immediately (or at all). ^_^

I Google'd but I can't seem to find your Patreon for Pathfinder stuff. :)

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Ultrace wrote:

Meirril wrote:

And we're wrapping up 1E without any rules for consuming monsters. I'm actually thinking about this. I know, its weird.

Sorry to hit your old post here, but this just reminded me. Didn't someone around here post something indicating they were working on a sort of monster cookbook, that you could use the parts from various beasts and such to create buffing meals? I remember being very interested in it, but maybe I hallucinated.

I know I certainly want it.

[blahpers]

WHAR IS CREAMED CORN SCHOOL SPECIALIST PAIZO WHAR

[Isabelle Lee]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Isabelle Lee wrote:

In official first-party material? Yes, probably, barring a surprise in the last couple of books.

That said, not every writer is planning to abandon Pathfinder First Edition immediately (or at all).

I Google'd but I can't seem to find your Patreon for Pathfinder stuff. :)

I'm working on it. ^_^

[blahpers]

Isabelle Lee wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Isabelle Lee wrote:

In official first-party material? Yes, probably, barring a surprise in the last couple of books.

That said, not every writer is planning to abandon Pathfinder First Edition immediately (or at all).

I Google'd but I can't seem to find your Patreon for Pathfinder stuff. :)

I'm working on it. ^_^

!!!

[Lelomenia]

Cleric that is effective with a bow? I mean, it’s favored weapon for a number of deities, but someone comes on and asks “how build archer cleric” everyone responds ‘just go warpriest’. Inquisitor, Paladin, Oracle, and shaman all have something they can point to.

[GM PDK]

Lelomenia wrote:

Cleric that is effective with a bow? I mean, it’s favored weapon for a number of deities, but someone comes on and asks “how build archer cleric” everyone responds ‘just go warpriest’. Inquisitor, Paladin, Oracle, and shaman all have something they can point to.

Cleric with a bow

[Arachnofiend]

Lelomenia wrote:

Cleric that is effective with a bow? I mean, it’s favored weapon for a number of deities, but someone comes on and asks “how build archer cleric” everyone responds ‘just go warpriest’. Inquisitor, Paladin, Oracle, and shaman all have something they can point to.

I mean, that's mostly just because a Warpriest is little more than a Cleric with better action economy for making attacks. As PDK posted you can do just fine making a cleric with a bow, the ramp-up is just slower because of the lack of fervor.

[Bardess]

Options to bypass alignment restrictions for Barbarians, Clerics and Paladins!

[Melkiador]

A cleric can be good with a bow. The problem is that no matter how good he gets with a bow, by a certain level he will almost always be better off ditching the bow and just casting his spells every round.

[Tim Emrick]

Set wrote:

But as for class options I'd have loved to see, a Monk or Ninja option that has the 'faux Asian' stripped away (no more kama or nun-chuks) and can be slotted into a culture that doesn't have contact with not-really-Japan. Keep the mechanics, get rid of the 'exotic' weapons (or reflavor them, make 'shuriken' into 'throwing spikes' or 'hex nails' or something), call ki 'focus' or something and go with it.

Want a "non-Asian" monk? Play a brawler. Easy! ;)

[Corrik]

Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.