Also there are two classes that relive on CHA for most of the class abilities.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I use to like playing clerics in PF1, however this revision I not interested in the class anymore. Plus what I have seen in Pathfinder Society in my area, most people do not like playing a healer type. The class needs the plus 3 for channeling or there might be more TPK and players might get frustrated and quite. Even at this year's reapercon there was a 2nd edition playtest and most people were not interested in playing the cleric even at PAX 2018 no one wanted to play the cleric in the PF1 system.. I think it has to do with the heal-bot theme. The cleric needs some better offensive spells and keep the channeling with the plus 3 per day.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Geflin Graysoul wrote: The armor table really bothers me and contains all the same issues as the current game. The heavy bias against heavier armor is infuriating.
If you are going to penalize people for wearing heavy armor then you need to add absorption. Light armor wearers focusing on dex will once again rule the game. Dex to damage...dex to hit...dex to ac...high reflex saves. The one stat to rule them all!
I feel like the developers think heavy armor acts like those sumo suits you see at the fair. The reality is heavy armor ruled the medieval battle fields for a reason...it was better and could absorb hits.
Good point: have medium and heavy armor have damage reduction to certain type of damages deal to it.
Also noticed that there is a lot of 1d4 damage type weapons, a few 1d6, and one 1d8 in the simple melee weapon area.
What happen to the Morningstar and Mace (heavy mace) dealing 1d8 damage, and the light mace dealing 1d6 damage?
I like using the maces in the past system!
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Was wondering why the Main-gauche has the Piercing with versatile Slashing and the Rapier does not have versatile Slashing?
The Main-gauche is a shorter (dagger-like) version of the Rapier.
Just my 2 cents.
Trixie99 wrote: One of our major PCs is a drow (the drow in our game world are not CE, but rather LN). We would request that the elf ancestry have options that allow for a drow build. Or at least have the elf ancestries have some feats to be a drow built, like have darkvision instead of low light vision, etc.

Squirrel_Dude wrote: So let's get a couple disclaimers out of the way.
- I was always going to be biased against a weapons table that has "longsword" and "bastard sword" as two separate weapons or an armor table that make biker gear the preferred armor compared to gambeson. It's not fair, but those are also annoying cliches.
- This is one of the first places I turned to in the book. I hate gear porn in games as a design philosophy, but it's something I generally enjoy looking at. There may be context that I am missing here.
The weapons table
Before I nitpick, I'd like to propose a larger change. Instead of separating weapons by Common/Simple-Martial , Uncommon/Simple-Martial-Exotic, I'd separate them first by category. Something that that looked much more like this in form but obviously not in style
That isn't an ideal solution, but that's partly because there are categories that seem to serve one weapon. Brawling is just variation of fist, hammers are just variants of the warhammer, picks are just variants of the pick. At least for myself, I find it an easier way to find the weapon I'm looking for than having to divine which proficiency a weapon is in.
That larger formatting suggestion out of the way, let's get to the petty nitpicks.
- Why are Bastard Swords only piercing damage? Are they a giant rapier? What?
- What is this? I'll let it slide that Katana are listed as a 1 handed weapon even though they aren't. However, Versatile P is absurd. They're a single edged sword. Oh also they're just a longsword that costs twice a much.
- There are too many polearms and too many knives. There are 6 different knives that deal 1d4 P damage. I understand that weapon traits make them different, but I don't care.
- In an edition where you want to simplify the game, having 31 weapon traits and 13 critical effects to consider for your weapon choice in addition to damage and cost and bulk maybe
...
Yes I think a lot of the weapons have been nerfed! Especially the maces, give them back their damage ability. The mace (or heavy mace) 1d8 damage and the light mace 1d6 damage and light maces can be similar to the light hammer and the mace is like the warhammer but the maces are easier to use. There is to many 1d4 type of damages in the simple weapon group, SERIOUSLY!
I like playing a cleric with a nice heavy hit blunt weapon to knock some sense into the bad guys.
should be no minuses or pluses.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote: It is a valid complain that with all that Paizo has published in the 10 or so years that it has been around and has access to is that all we are given is what is in the playtest book. I use to play a cleric=rogue with TWF style with maces. Can't do it now, however I can in 5E with neither = or =.

Seisho wrote: Okay lets see my first impressions:
The Good:
-I really like the more modular class system.
-also many changes on how the classes can be focused and how they get their powers are cool
-The new action system seems nice and offers new tactical depth
-the weapon tags and critical effects make weapons more different and interesting
-the new multiclassing system doesn't punish one for multiclassing anymore and opens up a lot of before unworkable concepts
-the half ancestry feats open up a lot of possibilities now and even more in the future
-the new weapon and armor enchantment system is awesome
-autoscaling cantrips as backup is kinda cool
The Bad:
-way too many class gated feats - why not a combat feat table? No dual wield or power attack for rogues and clerics and other things like that suck
-weirdly unbalanced ancestries - the feats are partially worthless, partially situational, partially imba
-limited class possibilities - no ranged paladin, no strength rogue and other fun builds (that admittedly were not easy) are now impossible
-much redundancy - why has every single character listed in the class table when they get the general feats/class feats/attribute boosts? one table inbefore the classes could have neutralized that - I thought letter count was important
-the spellist, while in itself not bad, really should get icons, letters or other stuff to see which spell is on which spell list(s), makes browsing easier - also PLEASE seperate powers and spells
-while the base of the archetype system is cool the execution lacks a lot - 4 feats for adequate spellcasting till spell level 8? only a single d6 sneak attack? weak, both of it
- also why has the rogue thievery and not stealth as entry/signature skill? stealth makes way more sense
-i would have wished for at least 2 more archetypes which are not based on the old classes to see what they can possibly do, pirate and cavalier are both very specific and situational
-the nonmagical healing is still very limited - battle medic is mediocre...
Good points! The more I read over the play test the more it feels like 4th D&D.
Ran a short game with some players and they seem more interested in staying with 5th D&D or Pathfinder 1E.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I like how they simplify the skills not as many, however I feel that some classes still need to have at less 4 skills and should not have a big different in the bonus points on most of them.
Like Witch Of Miracles said, if the party has trained with party's rogue in stealth they should have a higher bonus in sneaking into the dungeon maybe like +17 plus any minus to certain armor.
Also I feel the most of the Occultism skill could be placed in both Arcana and Religion skills. The bard class should have stay with its special arcane spells
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the resonance points should use the same method as in Starfinder's Resolve points by class type or use the Constitution.
Using a lot of magical items affecting the health of the character's body, plus a good constitution mean resistance of the physical stress on the body.

Excellent review!
I feel that the armor has been nerfed and also the weapon damage.
Especially for some simple weapons. Why is the light mace a 1d4 and finesse and the heavy mace a 1d6? Really the light mace (1d6 and agile) should be similar to the light hammer and the heavy mace or mace (1d8) similar to the warhammer. Laws of physic similar (mostly) weighted end of a shaft mostly equal same amount of force. Also the light flail should have stayed a 1d8.
I like some of the weapon traits like the Versatile for the sword, however the others give too much clutter to remember. With deadly and fatal adding another number die, why not just X3 or X4 the weapon damage on critical hits. Make it simple.
Plus I feel that there are to many 1d4 damage on simple weapons and most of the knives group. Truthfully the blades on a katar are larger than most daggers and uses a punching motion to strike a target.
The images I see of the star knife also looks much bigger than a regular knife of some daggers. I think that the katar and star knife should be a 1d6.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
They should give out more ancestry feats at 1st level (2 to 3) and maybe 3 to 4 for humans. Especially the one that are more biological. Such as dwarf resistance to poison, etc.
Or maybe do something back in the 2E AD&D Powers And Skills:
Each race and class had a number of set point to buy racial or class abilities.
Back then I played a cleric elf that was using two maces and very resistance to negative energy and undead affects. I used my point to get these and other unique abilities and forfeited using points in elf weapons, using a shield, medium and heavy armor.
I see the DEADLY SIMPLICITY cleric feat to increase the damage on favor weapons, so I see how the evil cleric of Asmodeus mace was a 1d8 for normal and another 1d8 for magical. Still do not like the alot of the damage changes. Also seem the classes are cookie cutter style so far.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Bummer on maces. Noticed that some of the weapons have been nerfed, like the the maces. Going the way of a 5th edition game. I remember on a YouTube podcast that the bad guy used a magical +1 heavy mace that did 2d8 damage, now the maces are 1d6 for heavy and 1d4 for light. I think some of the damage on simple weapon are to low, a D4 dice rolls pretty crappy most of the time.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Like to see elves not be so fragile (not Lords Of The Ring elves), but not as strong and have the ability to swap low light vision for dark vision.
Thanks for the info. I will look into the Slayer class the Unholy Barrister cleric type is allowed not sure about the Slayer. If the Slayer class is not allowed should I go rogue or inquisitor.
Thanks for the ideas.
Will be starting this campaign in the near future, and plan on playing a cleric. However, I am sure if I want to add an inquisitor or a rogue to the cleric class. I am leaning toward the inquisitor with the new trapfinder trait. It is a 25 points, thinking of being a half-elf, most player are Lawful Evil, one player is a cleric-deathmage, and the other is planning to be some type of tank class. Any information will be most helpful. Thanks, Ximmrik
Ordered Deep Magic the other day (5/29/14),received it today (6/7/14). I am unsatisfied with the book and was wondering if I can return the book for store credit. Thanks, Mike J
Ordered Deep Magic yesterday and my $5.00 store credit was applied to the order, however I try to get the May 14 (10%)discount and it was not applied to my order. Is there way I can still get it with this order?
Sincerely, Mike J.
I am planning on running a tiefling with alternate racial trait of the 2 claws, and was wondering if I can use the inquisitor judgment attack, damage bonuses, and bane with the claws? Thanks!

To me they should learn from their mistakes. One of all if there was a rogue in the party, why wasn't that person up front checking for traps! The wizard most likely should be in the middle or at the end of the group. Next did they read about all the classes or are they the type that thinks clerics are useful for only healing. With the channelling energy abilities,clerics (thanks Pathfinder)are more useful now. They can be a backup fighter type and can use other spells to help the party. At higher levels they get some AOE spells. Playing a cleric isn't easy, but the long run (with patient) they useful in any party.
Lately in our group we usually have 2 types of healers, with only 3 or 4 players, and we usually can out last most encounters the GM has us come up against.
Back in 3.5 editions most people did not want to play cleric, for most of the time their character would just be healing and nothing else.
If other players are demanding the cleric player for healing, he should role play as if the others worship his or her deity, have the them pay for healing if demanding,etc. We had a few players that demand the healer to heal them and were rude, once the healers demand payments and respect most other players thought twice about the hate on healers.
You warn them it was not going to be easy, and in real life if you do not have a medic skills in adventuring the unknown, war, etc. You are SOL. If they are new to the system, I would think they are use to computer game type adventures.
Like to see something like Star Trek and Star Wars with the use of Psionic. I have noticed that alot of GM do not like psionic in fantasy campaigns. Most seem it is for SCI-FI, which I would like to try in SCI-FI campaign. Star Wars had the Force (limit power and most were dark-side), and others sytems I had played or seen used fantasy magic (Modern D20). Which I lost interested in playing.
Also have armor as normal or damage reduction.
Have some melee weapons that are laser builded (light saber).
Have feats to use some melee weapons to deflect laser, bullets, etc. Like the Jedi did in both D20 Stars Wars editions.
Predator and Alien creature types might be interesting.
Most of all have the character hit points system, especially at the beginning somewhat survive a laser gun, normal gun, laser melee weapon, etc. Unlike in Star Wars (especailly in the 1st D20 edition).

default wrote: Hey everyone, this is Brad from Cold Dinosaur Games! We're putting together a dinosaur-themed PDF (Tentatively titled <i>Jurassic Parts</i>). To build up interest, we're publishing a sample from the pdf each friday.
This week the sample is Dilophosaurus. Its a low-level carnivore whose real danger lies in its venomous bite...
Dilophosaurus CR 4
XP 1,200
N Large animal
Init +7; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +13
DEFENSE
AC 17, touch 12, flat-footed 14 (+3 Dex, +5 natural, –1 size)
hp 45 (7d8+14)
Fort +7, Ref +8, Will +6
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee bite +8 (1d8+4 plus poison), 2 claws +8 (1d6+4)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks pounce
STATISTICS
Str 18, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 10
Base Atk +5; CMB +10; CMD 23;
Feats: Improved Initiative, Nimble Moves, Skill Focus: (Stealth), Endurance
Skills Perception +13, Stealth +9; Racial Modifiers: +4 Perception, +4 Stealth
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Poison (Ex)
Bite—injury; save Fort DC 15; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d3 Dex damage; cure 2 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.
ECOLOGY
Environment temperate or warm forests or swamps
Organization solitary, pair, or pack (3–6)
Treasure: Incidental
A large ambush predator, the Dilophosaurus prefers to strike and withdraw, allowing its paralyzing venom to do the work for it. Dilophosaurs typically reach approximately 20 ft in length, and weigh 1000 lbs or more.
Besides normal dinosaur statistics, the pdf will have samples and ideas for unique dinosaurs, animals who have acquired infamy and major reputations.
So are you all planning to set up a dinosaur games or campaign use pathfinder rules? My son is interested inplaying Pathfinder rpg, but he is interested in more dinosaur themes.
TriOmegaZero wrote: I forwarded the docs to everyone that has asked for them Kirth, no need to trouble yourself. :) Hey TriOmegaZero or Kirth, I was wondering if I could get a copy of your rules, feats,classes, etc. I try to download the ones at the beginning of this thread, but no luck. Thanks, Ximmrik
Here is my e-mail: ximmrik@yahoo.com
Dedlin wrote: I totally see what you are saying Kotroni, and was looking at doing a trickery domain cleric possibly. Honestly I a not a hug fan of Arcane casters, well playing them anyway. But was debating on it. I wold have to find a build I really liked and concept to go with it.
My question is this, other than dipping rogue for one level, any way as a cleric I can get Trapfinding so i can disable magical traps without wasting a dispel magic.
Kotroni: if you have a fun build for a trickster I am happy to hear it.
How about starting out as a 1st level rogue, and then have your character having a vision or calling of a deity with the luck or trickery domains and becoming a cleric-rogue.
Our group is playing gestalt characters in the Savage Tide adventure. We are currently at 13th level, however one of our player has move out of state. So our GM said that I (other 2 player don't want too)can generate another gestalt.We currently have dwarven barbaric-hexblade (CN), elf cleric-rogue (NG)(me) and a cleric-ranger (archery style) (LG). Both cleric worship the same deity as well.
I am stuck between running a dwarven fighter-knight or a dwarven swashbuckler-warlock the swashbuckler will come from the Tome Of Secret book. Since my other character is very stealth and sneaky, I planning on also running the dwarf as being very bold and combat challenging to the party's opponents. Any ideas would be helpful.
Thanks!
YuenglingDragon wrote: [url]http://www.amazon.com/Warded-Man-Peter-V-Brett/dp/0345503805[/url]
Really good. Cheaper on the Kindle/Nook. You can get apps for both of those on Droids and probably iPhones which is awesome.
Like the rebuilt, the arua would be good opinion rules (hexes) for the witch class (warlock for male witch), and/or the a hexblade class.
NICE work!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MRblahface wrote: ALL AWESOME. Thank you. Ok He just wants to raise the dead then use the positive and Holy "Whatever" to put them In there final resting place.I think every one has answered my questions. But what about say a L/G Kingdom has a law against necromancy of any kind. IF he were to raise dead would he in fact breaking the law? Thanks again! -MRblah Also have the the player role play the character, telling the other character why his or her character uses undead minions (as I mention above with the player in Scarred Lands). The player could substitue all clerical spells that deal acid, cold, fire, lighting, thunder damage into negative energy and take the metamagic feat energy substitution for postive energy. For example make flame strike into necronic strike were an eerie green glow of negative energy strike the area (postive energy: radiant orange light). The player could also dress in gray or black and white clothing (armor). Unique weapons for death are the one handed: khopesh (1d8X2 19-20), kopis (1d6X2 18-20), light flail, heavy flail, scimitar, great scimitar (1d10X2 18-20), great kopis (1D10X218-20), great khopesh (2d6X2 19-20), and kukri.

MRblahface wrote: ALL AWESOME. Thank you. Ok He just wants to raise the dead then use the positive and Holy "Whatever" to put them In there final resting place.I think every one has answered my questions. But what about say a L/G Kingdom has a law against necromancy of any kind. IF he were to raise dead would he in fact breaking the law? Thanks again! -MRblah It depend on how the law is written. The player can put hooded robes over his undead, would aminate skeletons, least likely to have the rotting flesh smell, too hide his minions. The player would have to raise the undead in a concealed area. If the law is written in a way that a person can not kill innocent people and then rise them as undead, controling or summon free will undead the player might get by. If the law is straight up no necromancy he or she is going to have problems and will be breaking the law. The other players might not want to deal with this player in fear out be cast as parnters of an outlaw. Does the kingdom has worshippers of a neutral deity of the dead. I feel the Eyphtians clerics of the dead were from true neutral to law netrual and view death as part of live. Also in the Forgotten Realm campaign, Kelemvar clerics try to comfort the folks who were dying and their relatives. Telling them it was a cycle of life. These cleric also hunted the undead (mostly free willed). Also the player might be interest in using the Death and Repose (In Forgotten Realm book) domains, these 2 might balance out both parts of life and death. The player can be an outsider of the dressed differently from the rest of the people in the kingdom, he or she could dress like a shaman or Eyphtian style. Plus if the player does not follow a deity he or she could use a dark green crystal, a polished sphereical semi precious stone called malachite, or a polished sphereical black and white stone (the cycle of life) for the divine foci.

mdt wrote: It's a cool concept, so go with it.
For the holy/unholy... I'd tell him to either get a quarterstaff and put Good Bane on one end, and Evil Bane on the other end.
As far as undead, it all depends on how he handles it. I'd do up a slightly different undead template. Instead of 'Skeleton', I'd use the skeleton stats, but instead call it 'Fallen Warrior'. Basically, a mummified warrior raises up, returned by his faith to fight at his side. Limit him to only being able to create undead on ancient battlefields where much glory and honor was won.
Good idea, this is somewhat similar to some of the necromances in the old campaign called Scarred Lands (Hollowfaust). The GM allow one player to play a cleric of a LN deity of the dead has a necromancer that could cast aminated undead for skeletons and zombies, but rebuke not control the undead. The player was LN and told the rest of the that the undead he raised were the empty remains of the living that the their souls have gone to the after live realm. This player worded how his character using his abilites that the paladin (but watch him)allow him to raise skeletons(zombies were too gross for her) to help the party. The player fought fire with fire by using his undead minions to fight other undead. The player specialized in hunting down free willed undead. The epic battle of the campaign was to destory a cult of a cleric mummy lord to the demon prince of Orcus. Also I think the 2nd issue of Wayfinder has an article about 2 deities that has duel channel energy.
Twin Agate Dragons wrote: DEXTEROUS ATHLETE
[fluff filler]
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13, Climb 1 rank, Swim 1 rank
Benefit: You use Dexterity as the key ability when making Climb checks and Swim checks. In addition you do not suffer an AC Penalty on Climb checks when wearing light armor and you may make full-round or standard actions while holding your breath without the -1 duration penalty to holding your breath.
Special: This feat must be taken at 1st level.
On the Crystal Keep web-site, there is a feat called Agile Athele from the 3.5 edition (I think) from Swashbuckling Adventure D20 book.
Must have 1 rank in climb and 1 rank in jump. You could change the jump for the swim. I believe that Swashbuckling Adventure book is an OGL product.

Clockwork pickle wrote: Despite their appealing flavor, dexterity-based characters suffer in combat because weapon damage is keyed off strength. It seems that the only way to optimize damage output with rogues or monks (for example) is to pump strength, which might defeat the purpose/concept of playing those kinds of characters, and often comes at the expense of dexterity in point buys. So, I was wondering if there was anything in the works (e.g. alternate class feature, feats) to help with this problem, or another thread on this topic?
There are lots of examples of feats or class features that reduce MAD in 3.5: the stone warden from the deepwarden PrC (Con to AC instead of DEX), zen archery feat (wisdom to ranged attack rolls), brutal throw (strength to ranged attack rolls), etc. None of these were particularly hard to get, but getting DEX to damage was/is. To illustrate, in 3.5 there was elegant strike, which was a class feature of the Champion of Corellon Larethian PrC (Races of the Wild), which gave dexterity to damage in addition to strength, but only with a handful of weapons and with onerous entry requirements (elf/half-elf, lots of armor and weapon proficiency and at least a half dozen feats), and a similar concept was present in a home-brew swashbuckler base class for Pathfinder by SmiloDan some time ago(don't know how to link, first time poster, sorry), which became available only at 17th level. It seems like people think that this is a very potent ability. I am probably missing something, but why is this something that shouldn’t be more easily available? Of course, having BOTH strength and dex (and all of strength, intelligence and dex in the case of the swashbuckler) is pretty great and shouldn't be a low-level option, but what would be game breaking or unbalanced about simply having dexterity to damage INSTEAD of strength, even for low-level characters?
I understand that DEX also contributes to AC, initiative, ranged attack rolls and useful skills (acrobatics, stealth, disable device), whereas STR contributes to...
There is a feat called Extra Finesse from the (7th Sea: Swashbuckling Adventures) that uses the DEX modifier for instead of STR. Can only use it with weapons that use the weapon finesse feat.

Erik Mona wrote: In July we officially kick off the Pathfinder RPG with the release of the Pathfinder Bestiary. The massive Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook follows in August, but beyond that we have not yet announced additional rules support for the game.
That support IS coming, and we're in the process of finalizing what form it will take.
The current plan is to release between 2-3 hardcover rulebooks per year, including additional Pathfinder Bestiaries.
What form would you like these books to take? Would you be interested in subscribing to such a line, provided the books cost somewhere around $35 a pop?
What titles/ideas would you like to see us explore?
We're all worried about rules bloat. What is your opinion of new classes and races?
Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?
Discuss.
Most players in our group hate prestige classes. Some have asked the GM if they can use some of the PrC abilities feats, skills, etc. without taking the PrC. He has the players multi-class like 2nd edition DND and take some of the special abilities has feats, or have the player built a core class of the 2 (mostly) classes which do not have all the benefits of the orginal classes.
A rough example is one player is playing a clerical rogue, the player only has a max sneak attack of 4D6 and is not proficient in only simple weapons, the deity's favor weapon and light armor. Plus the GM has it that the PC can not take feats in being proficient in medium to heavy armor or sheilds. The PC skill points are reduce to I think 5 or 6 plus INT.

Saurstalk wrote: I recently downloaded the Barbarian beta revision and noticed that Athletics is included as a skill. I'm trying to find Jason's thread on this but haven't done so just yet.
If this is accurate, is it simply Climb being renamed or have Jump been taken from Acrobatics and rolled into Athletics. (Swim still remains separate.)
That said, I remain perplexed why certain divisions still exist:
1. Knowledge (nature) and Survival. What makes these different? I have not seen a roll for a Knowledge (nature) check or Survival check that doesn't allow an alternative roll vice versa.
2. Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft. This would have made more sense. (In a similar vein, what ever happened to Concentration checks that weren't magic related?)
It would seem if skills were being rolled together, these two would be the more logical of combinations.
That would be great to combine Climb and Jump into the Athletics skill.
Also combine Knowledge (nature) with Survival for above ground skill checks, and Knowledge (dungeoneering) and survival for the underdark skill checks.
Knowledge (arcana) and spellcraft should be combine, and bring back Concertration.
|