Things You are Disappointed We Never Got From PF1 (And as such hope to see in PF2)


Playtest

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to talk about things that you had hoped to see "down the line" in PF1 but the designers never made.

For instance, I am sort of bummed that we never got Mark's "expanded" version of the Medium that was discussed during the playtest for Occult Adventures; for the uninitiated, Mark's early pass at that class involved having one spirit for each arcana of the Harrow Deck. I was super hyped to play that version of the class and kind of underwhelmed by the final class and its archetypes. I had always hoped that we would see the "original" version of the class as a soft cover or something.

I also always wanted to see a true dedicated "generalist" similar to the 3.5 DnD factotum. The final version of medium kind of got at the "factotum" type of character but I would have prefered a class that could "do anything" comparable to other classes (spells/skills/martial attacks) limited by a small finite resource rather than a class that could "choose one thing to do worse than another class at the start of each day". I get that is a design challenge but I do not think it is an insurmountable one and I hope to see this sort of thing in 2E eventually.

I wanted to see a mundane "leader" type class (like the 4e Martial) and--perhaps more specifically--a "lazy lord" style of class that could impel their allies to take extra actions and/or gave out bonuses in general (ala the Noble class in Star Wars Saga Edition or certain 4e Martial builds). You could do some of this "lazy lord" stuff with certain bard spells and haste, but I have always thought that playing with action economy is sufficiently fertile soil that a whole class could go there. I also generally like playing "squad leader" styles of characters and I don't know if any of the archetypes that tried to do this sort of thing (Like the "sensei" archetype) ever really did the job I wanted. I'd love to see a "commander" in PF 2E. It seems like Ranger may get some tech to support this kind of build in 2E but I'd really like to get that kind of build going earlier than it seems the Ranger will be able to.

I am also really bummed that PF1 never experimented with alternate magic systems like 3.5e eventually did (i.e. Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, 3e Psionics, Tome of Battle, etc.). I know a lot of that stuff burned people out but those later books kept me interested in 3.X way longer than I would have been interested otherwise; in many ways, it kept me interested in DnD long enough to jump ship to Pathfinder. Occult Adventures got at this alternate magic system stuff a little bit with Kineticist and Medium, but there was never anything as well developed as some of the stuff we saw in 3.5e. Honestly, I kind of quit playing Pathfinder 1E after Occult Adventures underwhelmed me (though I picked up Starfinder right when it dropped). I am a little worried that I'll eventually get bored with casters in 2e since Paizo is cutting down on the number of spell lists they have running around. Maybe something radically different could scratch itches that uniform spell list leave behind.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I would agree wholeheartedly about the Medium being a disappointment. One of my favorite classes in 3.5 was the Binder. It had a bunch of different options and all of them had great flavor that made it feel like you were making some sort of pact with some mysterious entity.

When I looked through the playtest for the Medium, I was super interested, but it made my head hurt to try to make sense of how different spirits worked together once you could have more than 1 selected. I'm not surprised that they decided that 54 different spirits would end up being too complicated and too much work. But what we got in the end had so much of the flavor stripped out of it that I had no interest in it.

Getting something that both fits that flavor and is mechanically balanced and useful would be great--but I don't think we'll see it early on in the 2nd edition books. They're going to have to focus, understandably, on the core classes and roles of fantasy adventuring.


James Krolak wrote:

I would agree wholeheartedly about the Medium being a disappointment. One of my favorite classes in 3.5 was the Binder. It had a bunch of different options and all of them had great flavor that made it feel like you were making some sort of pact with some mysterious entity.

When I looked through the playtest for the Medium, I was super interested, but it made my head hurt to try to make sense of how different spirits worked together once you could have more than 1 selected. I'm not surprised that they decided that 54 different spirits would end up being too complicated and too much work. But what we got in the end had so much of the flavor stripped out of it that I had no interest in it.

Getting something that both fits that flavor and is mechanically balanced and useful would be great--but I don't think we'll see it early on in the 2nd edition books. They're going to have to focus, understandably, on the core classes and roles of fantasy adventuring.

Totally. For the most part, these kinds of requests are something that should be addressed after the release of the full game next year.

That said, I kind of hope some of this stuff (like the "martial leader" niche) is handled one way or another through archetypes or class feats (from ranger and/or fighter in the case of the leader that I'd like).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)


Second the Factotum.
Was looking forward to playing that, but didn't before the big shift.
As flexible as PF2 is, this still might need a whole new class.

Have always wanted a polymorph warrior.
Yes, there's the shifter or the various wild shape possibilities, but I mean something more like the Summoner's Eidolon, where the PC sculpts a DIY monster to morph into, possibly choosing on the fly.
There was a prestige class in 3.x, again toward the end, that did this using polymorph spells and bonuses gained while polymorphed.
With the new system, I could see an archetype or prestige class open up this possibility, gaining access to stronger forms, using the original class mainly as a chassis. A Druid with a variant version of Wild Shape might best suit the need.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)

I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?


Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

Shadow Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Errata that is out long before a new printing.

An updated PRD.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

Perhaps multiclassing will make you less squishy? I don't know.

Honestly, I am not sure if having lots of classes is necessarily a safe assumption looking 3/4 years into the future. I kind of suspect that we will see fewer classes in PF2 and more expansion to class feats instead. That is just conjecture arising from the fact that there are way fewer class features that are "locked in" under PF2 and--as such--many mechanical niches can be filled by creating general archetypes and new class feats rather than creating all new classes.

I could also see Paizo creating class like "warlock" that also castes spontaneously, chooses its spell list, and is tougher in general. That could perhaps fit your needs as well as fill the old niches once covered by a few classes in PF 1E that are generally less iconic than the core classes.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am a little worried that I'll eventually get bored with casters in 2e since Paizo is cutting down on the number of spell lists they have running around. Maybe something radically different could scratch itches that uniform spell list leave behind.

It's currently lower progression but the spell points systems seem to promise some of this sort of thing, and given how the alchemist works I'd imagine that further Resonance experimentation is possible.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am a little worried that I'll eventually get bored with casters in 2e since Paizo is cutting down on the number of spell lists they have running around. Maybe something radically different could scratch itches that uniform spell list leave behind.
It's currently lower progression but the spell points systems seem to promise some of this sort of thing, and given how the alchemist works I'd imagine that further Resonance experimentation is possible.

I am actually super excited to look at the full alchemist. Their "semi-free alchemy" is already an alternate spell system of a sort. That is a very good point.

I suspect that the occultist is also going to be pretty exciting and be the vessel for "resonance experimentation" that you allude to.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like there's no reason to conserve classes-

There are many reasons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."

Isn't bloat just "more options I don't want to learn"? There's no indications they're planning to stop printing softcovers or hardcovers, what do you think will be in them?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On topic, I am disappointed we didn't really get an analogue to the Dragon Shaman, although both paladins and healer kineticists came close. At its core, I saw the Dragon Shaman to be a healer/decurse version of the warlock, something that could work all day and party all night without slowing down, and did it all without actual spells.

I doubt we'll see something like that completely without spells in PF2, but we might see a "caster" without a single spell slot, and plenty of cantrips and powers instead.


AnimatedPaper wrote:

On topic, I am disappointed we didn't really get an analogue to the Dragon Shaman, although both paladins and healer kineticists came close. At its core, I saw the Dragon Shaman to be a healer/decurse version of the warlock, something that could work all day and party all night without slowing down, and did it all without actual spells.

I doubt we'll see something like that completely without spells in PF2, but we might see a "caster" without a single spell slot, and plenty of cantrips and powers instead.

I suspect that we will get a class like this. I believe that I speculated somewhere that Bards could follow that formula: they could lack full casting but have cantrips and "spells" from spell points alone, of which they may get a larger pool.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."
Isn't bloat just "more options I don't want to learn"? There's no indications they're planning to stop printing softcovers or hardcovers, what do you think will be in them?

To me, Bloat is when many things that are at least arguably extraneous are made. For example, the sheer amount of archetypes that change, like, one or two features of a class are, to me, a bit much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

On topic, I am disappointed we didn't really get an analogue to the Dragon Shaman, although both paladins and healer kineticists came close. At its core, I saw the Dragon Shaman to be a healer/decurse version of the warlock, something that could work all day and party all night without slowing down, and did it all without actual spells.

I doubt we'll see something like that completely without spells in PF2, but we might see a "caster" without a single spell slot, and plenty of cantrips and powers instead.

I suspect that we will get a class like this. I believe that I speculated somewhere that Bards could follow that formula: they could lack full casting but have cantrips and "spells" from spell points alone, of which they may get a larger pool.

Bards almost certainly won't. They could, as in it is technically possible, but they won't. However, in a couple of years kineticists and shifters might travel this path, and who knows what else?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:
To me, Bloat is when many things that are at least arguably extraneous are made. For example, the sheer amount of archetypes that change, like, one or two features of a class are, to me, a bit much.

I would say not, as they allow you to combine those archetypes more than fuller ones that are more extensive changes. The fact that we're moving to archetypes as feat selections is a good thing in my book.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

On topic, I am disappointed we didn't really get an analogue to the Dragon Shaman, although both paladins and healer kineticists came close. At its core, I saw the Dragon Shaman to be a healer/decurse version of the warlock, something that could work all day and party all night without slowing down, and did it all without actual spells.

I doubt we'll see something like that completely without spells in PF2, but we might see a "caster" without a single spell slot, and plenty of cantrips and powers instead.

I suspect that we will get a class like this. I believe that I speculated somewhere that Bards could follow that formula: they could lack full casting but have cantrips and "spells" from spell points alone, of which they may get a larger pool.
Bards almost certainly won't. They could, as in it is technically possible, but they won't. However, in a couple of years kineticists and shifters might travel this path, and who knows what else?

I think you are unduly certain! That said, I do believe that it is unlikely. I think it is more likely that the bard will be a full caster but without any of the mechanics that give traditional "full casters" extra spells (such as the wizard's school specialization and their spell implement mechanics). Still, there is still room in the game of the structure that we discussed. edited some of my poorly edited nonsense


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rules for how telepathy works. Does it go through walls, is it two way if only one creature has the ability, can you talk to sentient creatures immune to mind affecting (some of whom have telepathy themselves), do you broadcast to either everyone or a single person or can you talk to several people in a larger crowd, etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."

For me, I feel like "New classes" is a really cheap way to expand player options without increasing the mental hurdle that leads to feelings of "bloat." Since once you pick a class, you don't have to care any more about all the other classes, and you can pick a class solely on thematics.

Whereas huge piles of feats, spells, magic items, and the like are things that people of all sorts of classes need to care about. I honestly feel like "a new pile of feats" is going to be easier to keep a handle on if it's associated with a class (with select feats cross listed as appropriate) than if they're just printed without an associated class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think you are unduly certain! That said, I do believe that it is unlikely. I think it is more likely that the bard will be a full caster but without any of the mechanics that give traditional "full casters" extra spells (such as the wizard's school specialization and their spell implement mechanics). Still, of the structure that we discussed.

I'm certain because they've mentioned bards choosing their spells before. It was an off-hand comment, addressing what kind of classes could be the primary healer and how, but it was mentioned. However, it's possible they were talking about powers, or that bards were full casters at that point but became off-casters later. Not likely, but technically possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shapeshifters that work and aren't nature-based. I don't care how horrifyingly strong they were in 3.5. It can be fixed without being castrated.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
To me, Bloat is when many things that are at least arguably extraneous are made. For example, the sheer amount of archetypes that change, like, one or two features of a class are, to me, a bit much.
I would say not, as they allow you to combine those archetypes more than fuller ones that are more extensive changes. The fact that we're moving to archetypes as feat selections is a good thing in my book.

In case I wasn't clear, I meant specifically the way they were done in PF1. But that's fine if we disagree. I don't think I really care all that much.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yes, I am one of the 'bloat = options' camp. I recognize your opposition and welcome it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, I am one of the 'bloat = options' camp. I recognize your opposition and welcome it.

I essentially agree with you. New options--no matter how fun and interesting--will always grate on someone who wants the game to remain smaller for one reason or another. Frankly, I understand a lot of the arguments for wanting less material, but I still like having new content to dig through more.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, I am one of the 'bloat = options' camp. I recognize your opposition and welcome it.
I essentially agree with you. New options--no matter how fun and interesting--will always grate on someone who wants the game to remain smaller for one reason or another. Frankly, I understand a lot of the arguments for wanting less material, but I still like having new content to dig through more.

It's a really tough dichotomy. One way to design to optimize for both crowds is to create content that give more options while keeping less cognitive load of memorizing tons of options just to play. Several of the ways feats are organized, the ways archetypes work, and more are structured towards giving players and GMs the most options while at the same time helping reduce that load. I hope we can have our cake and eat it too!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

artificer class focused on making gizmos with a construct buddy. The resonance system and alchemist design makes me think this is something that can more easily be accomplished nowadays than with Pathfinder 1E, which makes me hopeful.

Shadow Lodge

Really? Because I could do that just by reflavoring a Summoner and their spells, and if anything Resonance would go against the idea since we know it's needed for almost any magical item(aside from arbitrary exceptions) which would most certainly include the construct buddy if not for it most likely getting fueled by spell points instead.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, I am one of the 'bloat = options' camp. I recognize your opposition and welcome it.
I essentially agree with you. New options--no matter how fun and interesting--will always grate on someone who wants the game to remain smaller for one reason or another. Frankly, I understand a lot of the arguments for wanting less material, but I still like having new content to dig through more.
It's a really tough dichotomy. One way to design to optimize for both crowds is to create content that give more options while keeping less cognitive load of memorizing tons of options just to play. Several of the ways feats are organized, the ways archetypes work, and more are structured towards giving players and GMs the most options while at the same time helping reduce that load. I hope we can have our cake and eat it too!

I appreciate you guys for fighting the good fight and trying to walk that line. I imagine that it is tantalizingly easy to make a more rules light game knowing that would be less to balance and that it would please a non-negligible portion of your fan base. I'd say that it is much harder to make a game with a lot of options and mechanical complexity without making it illegible to a more general market.


Much of what I have to say has been said already, but I'll tag on for myself:

-Spontaneous (non-wild shaping) druid-list class.
-A class for each of the three things that Cavalier tried and failed to do: Mounted Combat, Martial Commander, Order/Challenge (well, the two things, anyway. Don't care much for mounts)
-Int Based (or more likely Int-secondary) Martial, in the way that a Swashbuckler was a Cha secondary martial.
-Planetouched shifter-esque class
-[Redacted so as not to get this thread locked, but it has to do with something that begins with P and rhymes with Galadin]
-Other Ki classes, that weren't simply monk archetypes


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

An AP focussed on trade/mercantile expansion and conflict (or any of the downtime rules, really).

Casmaron and Garundi campaign material.

An easy way to play low-magic campaigns.


Clerics being more customized and having powers more related to their domains as opposed to always having channeling, medium armor, and being able to spontaneously cast heal/harm spells.

They should be able to spontaneously cast their domain spells.

Some class skills should come from the domain.

Cleric should be one of the most customized classes in the game.


Dragonborn3 wrote:

Errata that is out long before a new printing.

An updated PRD.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want a Kineticist without burn, maybe fuelling powerful infusions with spell points that are Con-based, that also gets interesting utility abilities before 8th level (g**~@!n waiting for Move Earth was painful)

Stuff on the strix and syrinx would be right up there too, I find those two fascinating but there's so little on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I want a Kineticist without burn, maybe fuelling powerful infusions with spell points that are Con-based, that also gets interesting utility abilities before 8th level (g#$+#*n waiting for Move Earth was painful)

Weren't there a bunch of Kineticist Archetypes that eliminate burn? Elemental Ascetic, Blighted Defiler, and Psychokineticist to name three.

For my money if the Kineticist stops hurting itself and starts taking limits on its stuff (like spell points) I will be heartbroken.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I want a Kineticist without burn, maybe fuelling powerful infusions with spell points that are Con-based, that also gets interesting utility abilities before 8th level (g#$+#*n waiting for Move Earth was painful)

Weren't there a bunch of Kineticist Archetypes that eliminate burn? Elemental Ascetic, Blighted Defiler, and Psychokineticist to name three.

For my money if the Kineticist stops hurting itself and starts taking limits on its stuff (like spell points) I will be heartbroken.

There weren't any good archetypes. I didn't mind the hurting at first, until I hit the level where a single point of burn did more damage than the HP I gained from a new level - then I was very disappointed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I want a Kineticist without burn, maybe fuelling powerful infusions with spell points that are Con-based, that also gets interesting utility abilities before 8th level (g#$+#*n waiting for Move Earth was painful)

Weren't there a bunch of Kineticist Archetypes that eliminate burn? Elemental Ascetic, Blighted Defiler, and Psychokineticist to name three.

For my money if the Kineticist stops hurting itself and starts taking limits on its stuff (like spell points) I will be heartbroken.

My 2 copper prediction is that we’ll see burn return as a class specific debuff that can knock you out, but doesn’t risk outright killing you. With our new action economy, I can see you getting the choice to accept a point of burn in order to reduce the number of actions a power or cantrip takes, or to gain burn instead of spending spell points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was almost impossible to even mitigate resistance or immunity to an element in PF1. You could change the element of a spell and (very recent additions) cast diminish resistance or take the second rank of Hell Infusion to make your fire damage hellfire (which is worthless outside of an evil campaign, and useless half of time in those) and that was it. Sorc preview says that's in core now, so that's nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A remotely balanced (even a playable) end game.

So far things are look very promising.


More mythic adventures.

Encounter Codex.

Second Darkness Collected Edition.


Jason S wrote:

Clerics being more customized and having powers more related to their domains as opposed to always having channeling, medium armor, and being able to spontaneously cast heal/harm spells.

They should be able to spontaneously cast their domain spells.

Some class skills should come from the domain.

Cleric should be one of the most customized classes in the game.

This is why Shaman basically replaced Cleric for me.


I just want to say that a lot of things people wish in this thread have been made by 3pps for PF1. I know it's not an option for a lot of people, but it's a thing to keep in mind.


Wasn't incarnum the quasi magic item stuff? that stuff was pretty dope - and it would look really good with the dropped bab

I mean, pf had a word-magic system taht looked pretty cool but unfortunately it never got expanded (and as gm I was never really in a good position to test it in the first place)

I also loved mythic adventures and was bummed that it basically was dropped not much later


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."

If you feel intimidated by game options just play the Dungeon! board game. "Bloat" is a nonsense pejorative that gamers like to throw around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

non class wise, I guess more exploration of lands outside the Inner Sea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
I just want to say that a lot of things people wish in this thread have been made by 3pps for PF1. I know it's not an option for a lot of people, but it's a thing to keep in mind.

In my opinion, the quality and balance of those 3PP are really not where they needed to be. For one thing, they just don’t have the same capacity to playtest their products to the same extent and you end up with rules hat are out of balance or have a lot of unclear interactions. I mean, I could also just homebrew it all myself (and Indeed I have homebrewed some of my listed concepts) but that does not mean I don’t want Paizo’s version.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion a lot of 3rd party material is better balanced than Paizo's works. Of course it doesn't help that Paizo needlessly nerfed things people were using more often than not, so....

Or that Paizo made terrible archetypes for people wanting dragons, but the Dragonrider 3rd party class is amazing and far more balanced than it looks.

Or Shifter. Full stop.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
necromental wrote:
I just want to say that a lot of things people wish in this thread have been made by 3pps for PF1. I know it's not an option for a lot of people, but it's a thing to keep in mind.
In my opinion, the quality and balance of those 3PP are really not where they needed to be. For one thing, they just don’t have the same capacity to playtest their products to the same extent and you end up with rules hat are out of balance or have a lot of unclear interactions. I mean, I could also just homebrew it all myself (and Indeed I have homebrewed some of my listed concepts) but that does not mean I don’t want Paizo’s version.

I wouldn't dismiss 3rd party products. Some of them actually have pretty lengthy playtests, in a few cases longer than Paizo's (if not with as many different people) because they can wait any amount of time to publish. 3rd party products are really great because you can find ones that have a philosophy that is perfect for your game (chances are if you find just the right one, it might fit better than even Paizo stuff for your group), but that can be a challenge if you find ones that are designed around a different philosophy (for instance, there are a reasonable number that are designed for games much deadlier than the baseline game and that work well for those games but not for a baseline game, I think in part because many of the players deep enough into the game to look for 3pp products are more likely to be playing such games). The playtests they run may not help you if you are in the wrong demographic, say for instance they started with something that would be right for your game but then the playtesters were mostly harder-than-baseline high-power demographic and asked for it to become more powerful (for instance, in one such playtest where I participated as a fan when I was just a freelance 3pp designer, I posted one of my PCs I played in an AP, a pouncing beast totem superstitious human barbarian with the human FCB, max Strength and strong item choices, a falchion, and two extra natural attacks I picked up that work with the falchion and was told that this was an intentionally weak character that was far too weak to use as a baseline, to my astonishment; I was not surprised when that particular product came up with some pretty out there results, but that's very much the exception among 3pp), but they should be very helpful if you match the demographics of the playtest well.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Things You are Disappointed We Never Got From PF1 (And as such hope to see in PF2) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.