Thelemic_Noun |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a question for both fellow players and professional game designers working with the Pathfinder RPG.
Personally, even though it was a subpar class as written (at least compared to actual casters), the warlock from Complete Arcane was one of my favorites, and I wrote hundreds of pages on feats, invocations, prestige classes, and alternate class features for them.
Weapons of Legacy and Tome of Battle also contained great systems, and Magic of Incarnum was at least interesting, even if it had balance issues.
It seems like a great deal of Paizo's content has been carefully crafted to avoid duplicating 3.5 closed content out of fear of WotC's lawyers. Spells like greater plane shift, scry location, chain missile, and black blade of disaster, feats like Mobile Spellcasting, Extraordinary Concentration, Corpsecrafter, Craft Contingent Spell, and Rapid Blitz, prestige classes like Jade Phoenix Mage and Sand Shaper... all great additions to most any game, all closed off by Hasbro.
I know things like celerity, consumptive field, Divine Metamagic, the spells-for-powers erudite, and quite a few prestige classes (incantatrix, master of many forms) were unbalanced or outright broken, but it still feels to me that a lot of things have gone missing.
What do you miss most?
Suichimo |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tome of Battle, easily. I plan on picking up Path of War when I get paid, if I have enough.
The other would be the Tome of Magic. I know Binders had some love, and I personally liked Shadowcasters despite them being a bit weirdly done. Let DSP throw their hat into this ring and I think even Truenamers could be rescued.
Artemis Moonstar |
Tome of Magic.
I want my REAL Shadowcasting darn it! And my Truenaming. Even the Binders were interesting!
Gah! Stupid closed content... Which really confuses me, because last time I read over copyright law on games (about four years ago, need to check it again), you couldn't technically copyright game systems once they were out there. Even though that was written ages ago for board games like monopoly, the principle's the same... Hmm....
Nathanael Love |
Same here with the Warlock.
Nothing was easier to pass to the newer player who wanted to "blast it magic", than the Warlock.
Warlock doesn't hold up. We tried in a home game-- half the real power of the Warlock was in its magic item crafting trickery powers, but the Pathfinder rules have basically invalidated those already.
After three sessions it became obvious that there was nothing left in Warlock worth having in Pathfinder and my player remade his character into a Witch since it was the closest thing.
Looking forward to the Warlocks & Witches Kickstarter to come out though. . .
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
I miss several spells. I miss the improved versions of resistance that gave you more than +1, which meant you could wear something other than a cloak of resistance yet still keep your saves up.
I kinda miss the concept of the various orb spells. The no-SR thing was BS, but Pathfinder distinctly lacks much in the ranged touch damage spell department between 2nd and 6th spell levels. I played an arcane trickster a while back and it was really tough not having many options to sneak attack with.
Voadam |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warlock. Lots of problems with the class but I loved the at will blasting mage as a player option and as a straightforward quick magical NPC option. I wanted it to be OGL so people could work on better designed versions of it. I was also fond of the PHII at will druid shifting alternative and the charm focused caster from there as well.
The monsters, yes. Illithids, beholders, carrion crawlers, displacer beasts, and slaad in particular.
Gods. I wanted to see OGL stuff developed for the core pantheon. Paizo's as well. This goes for semi divine beings as well like Grazzt and two headed Demogorgon. Tome of Horrors got a lot and a ton of fiend lords are from mythology but there are a couple that are original and closed.
LazarX |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the issue with closed content. Want to use it? Then buy the book and do whatever adaptation needed to make it work. PFS players may be SOL, but you don't have to be at home.
There's no law that requires that the material has to have the pathfinder seal of approval for private home use.
Voadam |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't privy to most of the 3.5 "additions" that are now proprietary, but I guess I'll say: scouts, soulknives, and the aforementioned monsters (plus kuo-toa, thri-kreen and yuan-ti. What is it with copyrighted monsters and hyphenation?)
Soulknives are open content. Most of the 3.0 and 3.5 psionics handbook books were released as open content (not the mindflayer or yuan-ti parts and not the complete psionic book).
You can see a pathfinderized version of soulknives in Dreamscarred Press' psionics book.
minoritarian |
Pact Magic (don't have to miss it. thank you radiance house), Tome of Battle(don't have to miss it. thank you dreamscarred press), the environment books - particularly Sandstorm and Stormwrack. I'd really like Paizo to do some environment books, and not have them be limited to Golarion. (Though I do still want Oceans of Golarion more than any other book!)
Voadam |
Pact Magic (don't have to miss it. thank you radiance house), Tome of Battle(don't have to miss it. thank you dreamscarred press), the environment books - particularly Sandstorm and Stormwrack. I'd really like Paizo to do some environment books, and not have them be limited to Golarion. (Though I do still want Oceans of Golarion more than any other book!)
Dunes of Desolation by Frog God Games for a desert terrain themed pathfinder book.
Third Mind |
Don't recall what the exact name of the book was called, but it was supplimental and revolved entirely around poisons. Including crafting your own custom poison. I may have to re-find it, pick it up and see if my Dm and I can convert where needed. Even just the custom poison system would be great. It just really fulfilled the master poisoner concept for me.
David knott 242 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck -- neothelids are also open content, which gave Paizo quite a challenge in describing them and their origin given their obvious relationship to mind flayers.
Redfire |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Redfire wrote:I don't really get why aboleths are OGL while illithids aren't.Simply put, WotC decided they wanted illithids to be all theirs, probably because aboleths are nowhere near as popular to use.
True, but it's also kinda weird that we still have driders when D&D came up with driders, and they're linked to the drow, who are ridiculously popular (drow are derived from mythology, but driders aren't). It's kinda weird, but hey. It's WotC's decision.
LazarX |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Redfire wrote:I don't really get why aboleths are OGL while illithids aren't.Simply put, WotC decided they wanted illithids to be all theirs, probably because aboleths are nowhere near as popular to use.
They licensed Paradigm Press to do one Mindflayer book. Unveiled Masters: the Essential Guide to Mind Flayers, part of the Races of Legend series. It's worth digging up.
Robert Carter 58 |
This is a question for both fellow players and professional game designers working with the Pathfinder RPG.
Personally, even though it was a subpar class as written (at least compared to actual casters), the warlock from Complete Arcane was one of my favorites, and I wrote hundreds of pages on feats, invocations, prestige classes, and alternate class features for them.
Weapons of Legacy and Tome of Battle also contained great systems, and Magic of Incarnum was at least interesting, even if it had balance issues.
It seems like a great deal of Paizo's content has been carefully crafted to avoid duplicating 3.5 closed content out of fear of WotC's lawyers. Spells like greater plane shift, scry location, chain missile, and black blade of disaster, feats like Mobile Spellcasting, Extraordinary Concentration, Corpsecrafter, Craft Contingent Spell, and Rapid Blitz, prestige classes like Jade Phoenix Mage and Sand Shaper... all great additions to most any game, all closed off by Hasbro.
I know things like celerity, consumptive field, Divine Metamagic, the spells-for-powers erudite, and quite a few prestige classes (incantatrix, master of many forms) were unbalanced or outright broken, but it still feels to me that a lot of things have gone missing.
What do you miss most?
Why do you have to "miss" it. Use it.
Nathanael Love |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Redfire wrote:Agreed. Fortunately, most of the unbridled awesome of Eberron is in the flavor, not the mechanics.John Mangrum wrote:Ravenloft--all of it--for obvious reasons.If we're gonna bring settings up, I miss Eberron.
I miss second edition Dark Sun. . . not the conversions that were out there for 3/3.5 and certainly not the 4th ed version, but strictly 2nd edition Dark Sun.
ParagonDireRaccoon |
I think it would be cool to have official PF versions of all of the 2nd (and some 3rd ed versions) of the settings- Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc. And all of the classic monsters- mind flyers, beholders, githyanki and githzerai, nilbogs, etc. And of course a lot of adventures from all of the editions (too many great adventures to list).
Thelemic_Noun |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the issue with closed content. Want to use it? Then buy the book and do whatever adaptation needed to make it work. PFS players may be SOL, but you don't have to be at home.
There's no law that requires that the material has to have the pathfinder seal of approval for private home use.
The reason a lot of us would like the Paizo label on it is because so much of WotC's 3.5 material was designed without any real playtesting, and the rules interactions weren't thought out. Paizo makes a great deal of effort to ensure their rules are coherent and interact well.
And a lot of people rely on PFS for getting any RPG experiences in their town.
Interjection Games |
Tome of Magic.
I want my REAL Shadowcasting darn it! And my Truenaming. Even the Binders were interesting!
Gah! Stupid closed content... Which really confuses me, because last time I read over copyright law on games (about four years ago, need to check it again), you couldn't technically copyright game systems once they were out there. Even though that was written ages ago for board games like monopoly, the principle's the same... Hmm....
The Tome of Magic was my favorite book of the 3.5 era, not because of balance (We know that was torn to pieces.), but because of the extreme creativity within those pages. I'll be firing up a Kickstarter that I hope is seen as the spiritual successor to those wonderful alternate magic systems in the next couple of weeks, though I've already reworked both the truenamer and the warlock to be better balanced and have more depth. My base classes can be found right here - I hope you find something fun! The maestro, the edgewalker, and the truenamer are my personal recommendations.
Petty Alchemy RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No love for the Umber hulk?
I remember the Umber Hulk from my early 3.0 days.
It was the DM's "no you can't recover spells" mechanic. Trying to rest in a cleared dungeon room? Umber Hulk burrows in, does some smashing and confusion, then burrows out. It also ate our horse.
...I miss it, but only because of the rose-tinted glasses I'm wearing.
Set |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I miss not feeling guilty whenever I refer to spells by preceding the name of the spell with the wizard who created it. Some of the spells just sound awkward without it as well -- could the name Transformation for a spell be any more generic and undescriptive?
The Kingdoms of Kalamar game had alternate names for those spells, based on famous arcanists from their own setting, which was a kind of cool and thematic way of handling that.
So the 'Otto' spells were named after Azsul, a dwarven wizard from the earliest days.
.
I miss the displacer beast and mind flayer, of the 'closed' beasties, but some of the others, I don't miss at all. :)
LazarX |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zalman wrote:I miss not feeling guilty whenever I refer to spells by preceding the name of the spell with the wizard who created it. Some of the spells just sound awkward without it as well -- could the name Transformation for a spell be any more generic and undescriptive?The Kingdoms of Kalamar game had alternate names for those spells, based on famous arcanists from their own setting, which was a kind of cool and thematic way of handling that.
So the 'Otto' spells were named after Azsul, a dwarven wizard from the earliest days.
.
I miss the displacer beast and mind flayer, of the 'closed' beasties, but some of the others, I don't miss at all. :)
For myself I'm much happier that Paizo is giving us new stuff that WOTC never would have thought up on their own.
Chris Lambertz Paizo Glitterati Robot |