Sharroa DiViri, Hellknight

Marian Reinholtz's page

28 posts (2,983 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 460 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So I just purchased the last two items on my wish-list.....a wish-list that has always had a large number of items on it for many years. It's going to be strange to not constantly look to see what is coming out....not anticipating the next months release, and realize the game I loved is no longer producing content.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but feel a little sad.
For years I have had a bulky wish list, and have daily checked on the advice and rules forums for discussions.....but it's all coming to an end.
I'm not planning to move to 2nd Edition, and 1st addition is winding down.
There are still a few releases left on my "wish list"....but all in all it is dwindling rapidly month by month.

I'm really grateful for the last ten+ years, and I'm glad that our group still has so many AP's to pursue.....but it still feels like a big chunk of my life is dying off.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusNero wrote:
*double takes at unicorn sorcerer*

ROFLMAO.....Ya great Grandpa Uni was a really jokester :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cabal Devils (AKA Uniila)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:

I hope that we either get some more stuff for PF 1.0 sometimes down the line, or probably much more likely, that it will be really easy to convert PF 2.0 stuff into 1.0 rules and vice versa.

It is possible with Pathfinder & Starfinder, at least with the most basic stuff, so i am holding up hope for the future. ;-)

Flavor is I'm sure those of us sticking with PF1 will still follow specific area's of interest and convert the material back to PF1....but other than what has already been announced...I don't expect much support for PF1. They will be trying to get people to transfer over to PF2.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
You'll be delighted to know that in PF2, aeons will become much prominent and will replace Inevitables as the main True Neutral outsider race.

Not interested in not really interested in what direction they are going.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly ? Not much. There are places I can see need adjusting.....but for the most's exactly what I want.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Wow, every class getting a new 20th level capstone, that is awesome.

I must be missing often do people actually play a character to 20th level ?

We do AP' generally never make it to capstone ability :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping that these forums, and the digital versions of the 1E materials will be available for a good long time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ckdragons wrote:

Good luck to you! Paizo stopped doing FAQs. Last FAQ was almost a year ago (Feb 2018).

Besides, they made it pretty clear at the time they had no interest in fixing the Oozemorph, even hamstrung the one playable option.

It's probably a matter of houseruling for your table at this point.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SOLDIER-1st wrote:
Seems like they're doing lots of the books I've been waiting for now that we're close to the end.

I can't complain about that.....since this is more or less the end for me....I'm glad to see things I have been waiting patiently for finally coming out ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
It’s a problem of Pathfinder being built on a player base that didn’t want to abandon their previous version. And for the most part, Pathfinder was just 3rd edition, with a few bells and whistles added. If P2 was also just a small change, then people may not have been so upset. But instead, it’s just the same bitterness as when D&D moved to 4th, and changed everything.

Yep, feels exactly the same to me. Wizards threw everyone overboard (Including Paizo) to go a completely different direction....that's what is happening now. But like I said in another thread....I have enough material to play for many years, so when all is said and done everything is fine. I'm just a bit sad at the direction things have gone.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

What it meant to me (yes, past tense) was a continuation of the game system I really enjoyed (3.5), but with the addition of a setting I quickly grew to love as much as my old favorite setting (Dragonlance).

What Paizo has accomplished with Pathfinder has been extremely enjoyable for me over the last ten years, and I'm glad to know I can keep enjoying it for many years to come.

I have a great deal of nostalgic sadness that it's over....but realistically, I have enough adventures still to be explored that everything will be fine.

It's still like morning the loss of a friend in a way though :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll miss new AP's and books coming out. But beyond that we plan to keep playing PF1 for a good long time.

We have all the AP's (few holes to fill in some of them), and I'm actually looking through modules that look to be interesting. I assume they will keep selling 1E stuff digitally for a we have plenty to work with for a good long time.

I would have liked more information on Arcadia....but beyond that...we can keep our group going for many years to come.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Voted. Sticking with 1E. Not interested in the design direction 2E is going.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Christopk-K wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Yes, looks like it
What new stuff is there to talk about?

It’s not just a lack of new content.

FAQ’s have pretty much been discontinued, There is zero resolution to be found for ongoing rules questions.

And like I said, it's not likely to change.

Those of us staying with 1st edition are going to have to get more comfortable with simply house ruling things at our tables, rather than waiting for "official" input. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.
A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

....seems like there are some contradictions in the descriptions....

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I think it's fair to say the "community" killed the game for you. Paizo has moved in a completely different direction with the game.....and that's going to kill it for those that liked that it was still grounded in 3.5. If you liked the idea of 5th addition D&D you might like this as well, as it sounds like it emulating that.

That said, those who don't want to move in that direction....are under no obligation or compulsion to do so.

It's that simple.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

If the goal was to dumb things down enough to capture 4th & 5th Edition D&D types, without loosing the old 3.5 types....well that's probably not an achievable goal.

I have only payed a little attention to 2nd Edition....just enough to confirm I'm not interested.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Different people, but same name. The Greed one being a student of transmutation, though (AKA shapechanging) should give some suggestions about how this may have come about.

(It's a bit more complicated than that, and there was a fair amount of conflict between the two that eventually ended with Greed Aethusa getting taken out by Gluttony Aethusa; this is perhaps a story that might be explored more sometime in the future though.)

Thanks for the answer, James. I really hoped that you'd come back with a cool backstory for why the names are the same (instead of "oops, that's a mistake").

Now I hope you get a chance to expand on all the above in the near future!


I find it kind of funny that people think it's so odd they should have the same you know how many Steve's I work with ? and that's just one factory :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Could have been identical twins. Could have been that Aethusa figured out a way to magically "copy" themselves, one of them going one way, the second another ...

Or it may have simply been a fashionable name at the time ;)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Oh no?

Well I don't like attempts to overly complicate a game to appeal to basement dwelling min-maxers who look down their noses at everyone else. Isn't generalizing fun?

Alternatively, we could all trying to refrain from insulting people because they don't share our preferences IN RPGs (radical, I know!).

Interesting thing about insulting people, especially these insults are highly subjective, you actually can't post anything without running the risk of insulting someone ;)

That said, I'm not overly concerned with it. I speak my opinion, and the reactions of others is all them ;)

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

They did say a few months ago that they were trying out the most extreme versions of the rules changes that they were considering, so it is likely that they can and will walk back many of them. But which ones? That is where we need to speak up.

They would need to walk back the whole thing....a whole recapture my interest. The direction they are going does nothing for me. I don't like the attempts to "stream line" and simplify for a new generation that can't be bothered to learn the rules. It feels far to much like a video game to me, from what I'm seeing. I'm not even really interested in looking at the playtest when they release it after seeing the previews.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm staying with PF1.
Not interested in the direction PF2 is going.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm loving the's perfectly with a long term character concept that will work perfectly for the last AP.
Can't decide if I want to stick to the Slayer class concept...or switch to the Gloomblade for it though :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
I wanna learn about duskwalkers!

One of the first character concept I came up with after the introduction of the Whispering Tyrant....was a soul sent by Pharasma to defeat any with the introduction of this race....I can actually do this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Hey look at it this way, if 2e flops, they will go back to making 1e material.

Not likely....backwards is not really the directions to go. If 2E flops...they will just do 3e, and it will go even further away from 1E.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archmage Variel wrote:
So nothing new for the shifter it looks like?

The Shifter was such a flop....I don't really expect them to spend much effort going foreword on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Take 10 wrote:

wow... so many classes people have not seen - that I have PCs of.

just ... wow...

That's one reason why I have no interest in 2ndE....I still have plenty of classes I have not even had the opportunity to play yet :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damn......I would buy this just for the cover :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:
I say it again. A reboot is not inevitable.

I hate to break it to you, as I share your opinion that "Pathfinder is so critically linked to 3.5 that a reboot would be antithetical to the basic premise of Pathfinder."

However the truth is, it is inevitable.

The reason Pathfinder was based on/critically linked to 3.5, is that it was created as an effort to preserve and develop 3.5....which had many devoted followers (myself among them).

That worked for them for ten + years......however, they have now set their sites elsewhere.

All the wining and complaining in the world is not going to change the fact that they are looking to capture a different target audience than the old 3.5 fans.

Our time is done evidently ;)

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Mechanically I see no improvement over what already exists so far.
But I'm reserving judgement till the play-test is out there.

If it is actually just a nod to identity politics....I'm not horribly interested.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:

I'm sure I'm not alone in being on the fence about a hardcover book with all sorts of new stuff... when a new edition is coming out.

Basically, I guess my question is will non-stat, or fluff, info still be useful (canon) across editions. For instance, can I still consider the massive library of campaign setting material as official as ever, just disregarding stats that (will) no longer apply?

Naw....I'm likely not moving to I'll take what I can get for 1E ;)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That it was still faithful to 3.5, although I liked the "clean up" they did to.....enliven the core classes. The wealth of options at my disposal, allowing me to create just about any concept I can think of, and that I can build any concept a variety of way's.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

Still, I just don't see what rulebooks Paizo can publish under Pathfinder.


Do you really want a Bestiary 7?!

Do you really want another book with Classes and spells and feats and archetypes?

Tell me.

What RULEbooks are there left to do?

Or do you just think Paizo should publish campaign setting material and adventures from here on out?

I just don't get the problem.

Yes, that's exactly what I want.

Maybe not much need for a lot more classes....
But there is still plenty of material to cover, and now it appears it won't be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no idea what your talking about.....0.O

If subjects are "taboo" on the forums, then it's because there are to many juveniles making a fuss. Adults should be able to handle an adult discussion about anything.

God's above their is nothing I hate more than political correctness :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mine will be how far does it deviate from 1E. I'f it's more than a few changes....then naw.....

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
nighttree wrote:

That's just's the exact same decision WofC made when they did the 4E thing.

And when they did the 5E thing, which is running circles around Pathfinder as it stands.


People like to paint this as "Family" or "Community".....the reality is for them it's a business.....and if they think their business is best served by ignoring the desires of a cross section of the gain the following of a larger cross section of the community....that's exactly what they will do.

Stop wasting your time whining and appealing to community ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I'm still trying to understand why Paizo owes us conversion templates/documents to convert PF2 stuff to PF 1 stuff. There's literally almost 10 years of PF1 stuff and that's not enough?

I don't want to begrudge other people getting and having their new shiny thing fully supported. Much like I got Pathfinder 1 shiny and fully supported all those years ago.

And the idea that PF should devote resources from producing PF2 stuff to keep producing PF1 stuff is...well "delusional" isnt a word I like to throw around as it comes across as insulting so I'll just say maybe...not based in any sort of practical reality?

And this is coming from someone who has no intention of moving to PF2. It's not that I don't like the system (haven't SEEN the system yet and will make an informed decision when I get my hands on the playtest) it's just that I literally have a complete system with something like 22 -24 (by the end of the run) AP's and countless other Pathfinder adventures not to mention the 3.5 adventures that were produced INCLUDING AGE OF WORMS and SAVAGE TIDE.

Basically even though I'm not moving to PF2 I'm fine with other people getting what they want because I'm not a selfish entitled twit.

EDIT: and I want to be clear, I'm not calling anyone HERE a selfish entitled twit. I'm saying the behavior can be perceived as such and I'M not that.

Paizo doesn't "Owe" us anything.

That's not what anyone is saying.....(errr....ok it's what only a few are saying).....if Paizo want's to keep getting my money after the switch to 2E.....they are going to however need to come up with something I'm actually willing to spend my money on (which is not likely 2E products).

For the last ten years, buying the base lines and AP's has been automatic for me....

I have only begun to question that the last few releases (UW, etc...)

Now with this announcement (2E) I may actually be able to cut back my spending with Paizo I thus far see nothing that makes me want to switch from 1st Edition.

So if Paizo wants to keep getting my money...they are going to need to come up with something outside of 2E to do so ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
1of1 wrote:

Prefab backgrounds...

That was probably my least favorite part of Starfinder and 5e D&D.
Especially the part where if you opted out with Themeless in Starfinder, it felt like you were intentionally given something worse than the other options.


Going themeless in Starfinder really burned my wick. Why penalize a player for this? Ridiculous. Every GM should houserule this away and allow a themeless player to figure out a fair and balanced way to not be penalized.

I haven't look into Starfinder that much....what I did see turned me off, and I'm really not the least bit interested with the setting.

Creating and defining background is actually one of the most enjoyable aspects of RP to me.

In general, most of the ......"shortcuts" (for lack of a better term) to character creation, are one of the biggest turn off's to me in other systems.

So far, I'm seeing little that would make me interested in 2E.

I'll look at the playtest when it comes out, and if I see anything I like I'll incorporate it into my 1E games....evidently some of the stuff was in unchained....but as we have used very little from unchained.....I'm not holding my breath that I will be overly interested in 2nd E. If the modules for 2nd E are easily backwards compatible.....I may continue to buy them....if not we have a fair amount of material to continue foreword for a good amount of time.

It will be interesting to see how this play's out....

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I do have to question what is wrong with people if you send a poster hateful angry emails because you don't like their opinion :/ Seriously, what the hell guys
*fondly recalls that one gentleman who offered to drive his pickup truck over to his house and solve the problem "like real men do"*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Well, after the initial shock, I realized that I really do have enough 1e material to last me a lifetime, so I can happily keep playing it forever if need be. So once I got secure in that idea, it's easier to take tentative nibbles that maybe I could make use of *some* parts of 2e (like the APs).

I'm in the same boat, I have bought with few exceptions all the main books and AP' we have enough material to work with for many years.

Still, It would be nice of the 2E AP's coming out are easily usable in 1E play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
nighttree wrote:
If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.
If they maintain compatibility at that level, why bother buying Pathfinder 2.0 at all? Just use pathfinder 1.0 rulebooks to run Pathfinder 2.0 adventures.

Nicely made point ;)

And exactly what I will do :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

What bugs me isn't the new edition in and of itself, but rather that 2nd P seems to be retreading the path 5E is taking in many areas when Paizo could instead have gone in the opposite direction and given us something unique.

Basically they're competing with the beast rather than outmaneuvering it.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Again, nothing they've listed makes it seem like it will play or feel THAT different from 3.x

It’s hard to know without seeing the playtest.

For what it’s worth, Vic Wertz made a post recently explicitly stating that PF2 trying to compete with 5E would be a terrible idea.

I think part of the confusion in the community is because words like “streamlined” can be implemented in a myriad of ways. Likewise, 5E and PF2 both had a design goal “make it easy for new players to get into the game”. That doesn’t imply that PF2 will meet that brief in the same way 5E did (by significantly limiting character building choices to a few, key moments in that PC’s progression).

It’s worth remembering that the people building PF2 enjoy tinkering with character builds and making meaningful choices while doing that. It would be surprising if they decided to take this opportunity and churn out a game where you couldn’t do that.


Until the playtest is released....we are just guessing at how extreme the differences will be, and if they are acceptable to each of our individual tables. I know I am not interested in any major changes. I like the system as is (and no that's not open to debate so don't bother).

That said I'm not anxious for the changes....but will look at them when they appear.....and proceed accordingly.....

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Again, nothing they've listed makes it seem like it will play or feel THAT different from 3.x

Not sure I can agree everything that's been said so far is verbatim what WoTC said at 4E....

So ya....I'm skeptical.

If all of my existing books are usable with little to no adjustment I will gladly adapt to PF2.....if not......I'm not interested.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And why is it we have the option to "favorite" a post.....and not the opportunity to "thumbs down" a post ?

1 to 50 of 460 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>