Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)

Is this a "Friday after 000 Pacific" or a "Friday morning when normal people get to the office" for the beta playtest?

Also, first on the page, woot!

Is this a "Friday after 000 Pacific" or a "Friday morning when normal people get to the office" for the beta playtest?

Also, first on the page, woot!

i was wondering the same thing...the blog is usually up by 1:00 am here, but here it is 2:57 am and im still waiting out till 3:00 am before i hit the hay.

...so... back to talking about the Advanced Player Guide. I hope that the section on the fighter adds more weapon groups for the Weapon Training class ability. The groups are sectioned by weapon type now, but I would like to see some by culture/race; caveman weapon group, Native American weapon group, nobility weapon group, elven, ect… Yes the groups by weapon type makes sense because you should be able to use similar weapons with the same basic forms and movements; but I believe doing weapon groups by culture can allude to a character’s background and training during world travels.
On the same note, but not really, has Pathfinder stats for the harpoon been released somewhere?

Not to go off-topic, but I still have yet to see this super-sized 4E fan base everyone keeps talking about. Of the dozens of gamers I have met in the metropolitan area here in STL, a vast majority despise 4E and the various gaming shops I go to here either have no D&D games running because people gave up on WotC, have both a 4E and a 3.5e game running, or just non-4E D&D games running.

I meant that their is a large fanbase in general as compared to other rpgs. You can pretend that 4E is not popular and the fans outrank other rpgs but they do.

Meanwhile, the same folks stick with 3.5E or have signed onto Pathfinder with wild abandon. So I think it's safe to say Paizo has their fanbase as large as 4E (and I dare not say larger than 4E, only because I believe the ones that didn't go with Pathfinder just decided to stick with 3.5e or some earlier edition to do what WotC failed to do...which was remember their roots).

D&D and the number of it's fans are large. Maybe not in your neck of the woods but in general they outnumber most other rpg fans. The only other fanbase as large is White wolf Fans. In terms of comparison not as large as 4E not even close imo. As for fans going over to Pathfinder with "wild abandon" I do not think so at all. With many considering that Paizo did not implement enough change and with the economy being what is I think fans are much less inclined to buy something that is so similiar to 3.5. I have fans of 3.5 in my gaming circle that really dislike 4E but if forced to choose would rather buy 4E because it is different game. They feel that Paizo did not change enough with Pathfinder and for the most part are satosified with 3.5. In my experience a cosumer would rather buy a new product then just a variation of an older product.

To me 3.5 is a niche market. A very successful nice market but a niche market nonetheless. You had that the same thing happen whem 3.0 came out. Games of 2E and 1E edition just became less and less. You stil have fans who play these older editions just not im the same numbers before 3E was released.

Your quoting the wrong person. I didn't post those things.

All I can say about 4E is I know no one who plays it. I can't find a single person interested in it and if I ask I get told how terrible a game 4E is. I don't see a lot of Pathfinder either but it is showing up more and more these days. I suspect it has to do with how hard it is to get the core books here. I still haven't got mine. I've got the APs, Bestiary, and Glorian setting but still waiting for the core book with no hint when it will ship.

There are a lot of 3.5 games going though but the big one these days seem to be White Wolf specifically Vampire. I blame that on the Twilight movies though.

Sorry abouty that Voska 66.

Not to go off-topic, but I still have yet to see this super-sized 4E fan base everyone keeps talking about. Of the dozens of gamers I have met in the metropolitan area here in STL, a vast majority despise 4E and the various gaming shops I go to here either have no D&D games running because people gave up on WotC, have both a 4E and a 3.5e game running, or just non-4E D&D games running.

I meant that their is a large fanbase in general as compared to other rpgs. You can pretend that 4E is not popular and the fans outrank other rpgs but they do.

Meanwhile, the same folks stick with 3.5E or have signed onto Pathfinder with wild abandon. So I think it's safe to say Paizo has their fanbase as large as 4E (and I dare not say larger than 4E, only because I believe the ones that didn't go with Pathfinder just decided to stick with 3.5e or some earlier edition to do what WotC failed to do...which was remember their roots). [

D&D and the number of it's fans are large. Maybe not in your neck of the woods but in general they outnumber most other rpg fans. The only other fanbase as large is White wolf Fans. In terms of comparison not as large as 4E not even close imo. As for fans going over to Pathfinder with "wild abandon" I do not think so at all. With many considering that Paizo did not implement enough change and with the economy being what is I think fans are much less inclined to buy something that is so similiar to 3.5. I have fans of 3.5 in my gaming circle that really dislike 4E but if forced to choose would rather buy 4E because it is different game. They feel that Paizo did not change enough with Pathfinder and for the most part are satosified with 3.5. In my experience a cosumer would rather buy a new product then just a variation of an older product.

To me 3.5 is a niche market. A very successful nice market but a niche market nonetheless. You had that the same thing happen whem 3.0 came out. Games of 2E and 1E edition just became less and less. You stil have fans who play these older editions just not im the same numbers before 3E was released. I really wish some gamers woulld not underestimate the popularity of D&D in general. How can you even say that Pathfinder fans equal the 4E fans when Pathfinder has been out for what 3 months. Tell me that in another 6 months or a year from now. Then we can better guage how popular or large the fanbase truly is.

Sounds exciting! I always felt D&D needed a workable witch class.

Just downloaded the Cavaliar and Oracle PDF cannot wait to read it!

Could really care less about Epic Classes as I have yet to play a character to such levels...hell, I dont get much use out of the Prestige Classes, so those arent a big deal for me either

My primary interest is in Psionics, so as long as those get some form of Pathfinder treatment I'll be happy

Sounds exciting! I always felt D&D needed a workable witch class.

Here is a link to a book from Green Ronin on witches. http://shortify.com/9584 . Hope it helps.

Just downloaded and reviewed the playtest Cavalier and Oracle classes, and have to say I really like the Oracle. It could suit my own campaign well, as I have been working with one of my players to produce a divine version of sorceror loosely based off an alternate divine class in one of you-know-who-and-shall-remain-nameless' "splatbooks". We were creating "devotions" and assigning powers much as the sorceror gets powers and spells through bloodlines, but I really didn't want to simply create a new type of sorceror that casts divine magic instead of arcane. The Oracle is a much-welcome alternate, IMO, and something I will definitely run by my player, but one thing is lacking to sway him; his Chosen One gets his powers from the deities of Knowledge, and there is currently no such focus for the Oracle. Also, if would be nice to see foci regarding Artifice, Beasts (or Nature in general), Life (counterpoint to Bones, maybe call it Spirit?), Magic, and possibly something dealing with the outer planes (an Oracle with angelic or demonic ties, perhaps?).
While I'm sure once the ball gets rolling, players and DMs can come up with their own foci to suit their game realms, I think there should be as many sample foci for the class as there are bloodlines for the sorceror. Also, another possible curse: mute. Some "classical" oracles in stories and film are mute and can only pass along their "visions" through pictures and charades.

As for the cavalier, I'm still a bit leery about that class, but I've never really been that fond of the concept. Still, I'm willing to give it a chance. I might change my opinion upon seeing it in play.

Wayne Reynolds is such an overrated artist, IMO. i'd much rather see them get Ron Spencer to do the majority of the artwork for paizo products.

as for the Advanced player's guide, i'd rather see psionics and epic material - both of which fall in the "advanced" category IMO - than 6 new core classes (5 of which are casters of some sort - at least give us some more non-caster options). but eventually i'll pick it up for the new feats and to see if they include any decent prestige classes(remakes or original), or alternate class features for the original core classes.

as excited as i was to be part of the beta playtest for the rpg, the initial information released about the Advanced player's guide hasn't gotten me as geeked, but i'll wait until more info is revealed b4 making my final judgement.

darth_borehd wrote:

Sounds exciting! I always felt D&D needed a workable witch class.

Here is a link to a book from Green Ronin on witches. http://shortify.com/9584 . Hope it helps.

Also the 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming book Paths of Power, which is available for pre-order now right here on Paizo.com

I was reading thru the playtest version of thwe Oracle and there is some confusing language. On page 9 of the pdf it says that Oracles' with high Charisma sciores gets bonus spells, but later on that page it seems to disagree with that saying its a bonus in spells being cast per day. It is not easy to go thru this anbd almost like reading a lawyer's legal jargon. This may need to be revised in the hard copy.

I was reading thru the playtest version of thwe Oracle and there is some confusing language.

You'll want to post playtest feedback in the playtest forum so that it can be considered.

Awwww.... no fighter/caster class? Dang... I was really hoping for a core class Fighter/Mage type. Multiclassing just doesn't quite have the same feel to it.

Awwww.... no fighter/caster class? Dang... I was really hoping for a core class Fighter/Mage type. Multiclassing just doesn't quite have the same feel to it.

Personally, I never liked the "gish" classes, because I see them better modeled via Prestige Classes (Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer are pretty good choices in my books). Besides, it's to end up with something that makes fighter/wizards a totally suboptimal choice. Ergo, I'm very happy if Paizo stays away from making base classes for multiclass combinations.

So this book is only going to contain new classes/spells/feats? Or is it going to include more?

Maveric28 wrote:

Awwww.... no fighter/caster class? Dang... I was really hoping for a core class Fighter/Mage type. Multiclassing just doesn't quite have the same feel to it.

Personally, I never liked the "gish" classes, because I see them better modeled via Prestige Classes (Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer are pretty good choices in my books). Besides, it's to end up with something that makes fighter/wizards a totally suboptimal choice. Ergo, I'm very happy if Paizo stays away from making base classes for multiclass combinations.

I agree on this as well. Though I believe that certain classes do go well together.... but then that is why some prestige classes require multiclassing.

I echo the above guy in regards to WARs artwork, I do wish you had some of Diterlizzis work though I remember his Planescapre stuff & it was awesome.

I do have a question though; I'm reading about the new classes in the APG, what about Prestige Classes (PrCS)? I'd love to see your version of the Blackguard... among others.

So I'm really new to the website, so I apologize in advance if I ask a question that is answered in big bold letters at the top of a page somewhere else, I'm still getting a feel for the place.

I absolutely love Pathfinder, and my group has switched to it with gleeful exuberance. We all loved 3.5, tried 4.0 and were unimpressed, and felt happy that someone was continuing to rework and refine the rules we knew and loved.

But most of us are putting ourselves through college, and don't have the money to throw away on a whole new library. in fact one of the things that drew us to Pathfinder was it's compatibility and that 95% of the information we needed was all in one giant book.

My point is that it is unclear wether this book is an addition to the current Core Rulebook, (similar to the Players Handbook 2.0 from WotC kind of thing) or a replacement for it (like AD&D was to classic DnD). We are just getting to the point were most of the people in my group have their own copy of the current Core Rulebook, and if they find out that a bunch of the rules and information in the books they JUST dropped money on will be replaced with new stuff when this book comes out, It's going to depress a lot of people.

I love a continually growing and evolving game, thats how they stay fresh and work out problems, but if there are going to be rules clashes between people still using the CR and the ones who have managed to get a copy of APG, that will be really aggravating.

(Edited by Sunos to fix the misunderstanding mentioned in the following post)

As a matter of fact, Sunos, you might be confused by the titles of books :
The Player's Handbook is the main core book of Dungeons & Dragons.
The Core Rulebook is the main book of Pathfinder. And it is a guide for both players and game masters.

This new book will be an extension for players, presenting more options for their characters.

The same way there will be in may another book destined to game masters, the Game Mastery Guide.

So no, this Advanced Player's Guide is not made to replace the Core Rulebook, just to complement it, as a suppplement.

By the way, welcome on the Paizo messageboards :)

So I'm really new to the website, so I apologize in advance if I ask a question that is answered in big bold letters at the top of a page somewhere else, I'm still getting a feel for the place.

I absolutely love Pathfinder, and my group has switched to it with gleeful exuberance. We all loved 3.5, tried 4.0 and were unimpressed, and felt happy that someone was continuing to rework and refine the rules we knew and loved.

But most of us are putting ourselves through college, and don't have the money to throw away on a whole new library. in fact one of the things that drew us to Pathfinder was it's compatibility and that 95% of the information we needed was all in one giant book.

My point is that it is unclear wether this book is an addition to the current Players Guide, (a Players Handbook 2.0 kind of thing) or a replacement for it. We are just getting to the point were most of the people in my group have their own copy of the current Players Guide, and if they find out that a bunch of the rules and information in the books they JUST dropped money on will be replaced with new stuff when this book comes out, It's going to depress a lot of people.

I love a continually growing and evolving game, thats how they stay fresh and work out problems, but if there are going to be rules clashes between people still using the PG and the ones who have managed to get a copy of APG, that will be really aggravating.

Think of it as a Player's Handbook 2 or one of the Complete series from 3.5.

As a matter of fact, Sunos, you might be confused by the titles of books :

The Player's Handbook is the main core book of Dungeons & Dragons.
The Core Rulebook is the main book of Pathfinder. And it is a guide for both players and game masters.

Ah yes, I did misspeak. Where ever I said "Players Guide" I meant the Core Rulebook, which is, as you guessed, a habit left over from DnD 3.5. Just replace that phrase with Core Rulebook and you'll get the question I meant to ask.

This new book will be an extension for players, presenting more options for their characters.

The same way there will be in may another book destined to game masters, the Game Mastery Guide.

So no, this Advanced Player's Guide is not made to replace the Core Rulebook, just to complement it, as a suppplement.

Think of it as a Player's Handbook 2 or one of the Complete series from 3.5.

It just adds some new baseclasses, feats and other stuff to the game and is not a replacement for the original book.

Thank you to both of you, this is exactly what I wanted to know, and exactly the answer I was hoping to hear. ^^

By the way, welcome on the Paizo messageboards :)

Thank you very much! A pleasure to be here. ^^

Will the expanded rules cover epic play at all?

Will the expanded rules cover epic play at all?

As far as we know, not at all. Paizo has yet to tackle epic play and when they do they have said more of less it's a whole new system not using the 3.0/3.5 rules at all for it.

Anyone know when and if Paizo will be putting out a psionics rule set for Pathfinder? Or is that not planned?

Anyone know when and if Paizo will be putting out a psionics rule set for Pathfinder? Or is that not planned?

It has not been formally announced, but it has been stated several times that there will most likely be psionics, epic, monstrous PC, Asian adventures, etc. support down the road.

It has also been stated it very unlikely be the 3.5 ruleset upgraded, but something new when they get to it.

Wayne Reynolds is such an overrated artist, IMO.

Just want to say I STRONGLY, and respectfully, disagree with you on this. He is FAR and AWAY my favorite artist that Paizo contracts. More WAR please.

(employs? conscripts? not sure the word im looking for here, something more eloquent than "uses")

Will there be any new PrCs in this book? I've skimmed this thread and couldn't find an answer, so apologies if this is a repeated question.

Will there be any new PrCs in this book? I've skimmed this thread and couldn't find an answer, so apologies if this is a repeated question.

Yes, there will be PrC's.

Jam412 wrote:

Will there be any new PrCs in this book? I've skimmed this thread and couldn't find an answer, so apologies if this is a repeated question.

Yes, there will be PrC's.

Thanks Jason. Judging by your short answer, I'm assuming that you guys haven't announced which ones they'll be.

Jason Nelson wrote:

Jam412 wrote:

Will there be any new PrCs in this book? I've skimmed this thread and couldn't find an answer, so apologies if this is a repeated question.

Yes, there will be PrC's.

Thanks Jason. Judging by your short answer, I'm assuming that you guys haven't announced which ones they'll be.

Natural 20 on your Perception check. :)

Damn damn damn, I just thought of something at work today about the Alchemist but the playtests had ended last week already.

I was going to mention if another set of abilities for the Alchemist would be POISONS! What kind of alchemist would it be if it didn't know to craft together poisons. It works with chemicals of all types, fictional, nonfictional, magical, mundane. Poisons can be another method of its attacks.

Well...maybe as a "alchemist prestige class" or set of feats or something probably. But it'd be sweet. Abilities to craft poisons, deliver poisons, increase the DCs, etc.

I see it has some poisons abilities like resistance and applying it quicker, but nothing involved in creating them or diversifying them and their uses.

Just a thought (that came too late it seems).

Although the playtest is over... the classes are still in development for some time. We're still looking at these boards and still absorbing ideas, but it's just moved on from public visibility mode to the final batch of adjustments.

Anyway... alchemists do have some poison-related powers already. And keep in mind the fact that these 6 base classes are only a fraction of the whole book; there's LOTS of other stuff in there. Some of which will actually be stuff for these new 6 classes as well as stuff for the core 11.

Although the playtest is over... the classes are still in development for some time. We're still looking at these boards and still absorbing ideas, but it's just moved on from public visibility mode to the final batch of adjustments.

Anyway... alchemists do have some poison-related powers already. And keep in mind the fact that these 6 base classes are only a fraction of the whole book; there's LOTS of other stuff in there. Some of which will actually be stuff for these new 6 classes as well as stuff for the core 11.

So if I want to add some thoughts on the oracle, where may I post them?

Post away. Just do so with the knowledge that we might not see the post and we are VERY unlikely to provide feedback since the playtest is over.

Post away. Just do so with the knowledge that we might not see the post and we are VERY unlikely to provide feedback since the playtest is over.

Cool.

James, perhaps this is not best place to ask this question, but I'm gonna do it anyway: Will Paizo at some point publish some rules on creating gestalt characters?

James, perhaps this is not best place to ask this question, but I'm gonna do it anyway: Will Paizo at some point publish some rules on creating gestalt characters?

We have no plans to do so for now; such a system would almost certainly have to be in the same context as it appeared in 3.5; as part of a book of alternate/experimental rules.

For now, though, won't the current rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana work?

For now, though, won't the current rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana work?

They've worked for me in my 3-man RotRL game. :)

nightflier wrote:

James, perhaps this is not best place to ask this question, but I'm gonna do it anyway: Will Paizo at some point publish some rules on creating gestalt characters?

We have no plans to do so for now; such a system would almost certainly have to be in the same context as it appeared in 3.5; as part of a book of alternate/experimental rules.

For now, though, won't the current rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana work?

Sure, they work rather well and most of my games are gestalt. I just tend to think that Paizo generally improves the rules, so I hoped for a alternative rulebook published by you guys.

Alright Eric. Here are the last two I promised you.

James Jacobs wrote:

For now, though, won't the current rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana work?

They've worked for me in my 3-man RotRL game. :)

Lilith

I am SO looking forward to this book it is not even funny. I am also in the camp of LOVING Wayne Reynolds as the cover artist. Speaking of the cover (no I'm not looking for it yet) but I was wondering, will the new classes be featured on the cover (some of them, ALL of them) and fighting some AWESOME villain/monster?

Okay, here endth my questions. :)

Dean (TMW)

I am SO looking forward to this book it is not even funny. I am also in the camp of LOVING Wayne Reynolds as the cover artist. Speaking of the cover (no I'm not looking for it yet) but I was wondering, will the new classes be featured on the cover (some of them, ALL of them) and fighting some AWESOME villain/monster?

Outlook good

Lilith wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

For now, though, won't the current rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana work?

They've worked for me in my 3-man RotRL game. :)

Lilith** spoiler omitted **

I don't really know where to ask questions about the advanced player's guide classes now that the play test forums are down, if there is a better place to discuss them in general please let me know.

I had a question concerning the Witch. I just wanted to know what the rationale behind making the Witch's primary spellcasting stat Intelligence was. As I understood the fluff / flavor, the witch gets all of her spells by communing with her familiar. It seems like Charisma or Wisdom would be a better fit. Is there any chance of something so core to the class being changed? Could someone please explain why Intelligence was chosen in this case?

Thank you much.

I don't really know where to ask questions about the advanced player's guide classes now that the play test forums are down, if there is a better place to discuss them in general please let me know.

I had a question concerning the Witch. I just wanted to know what the rationale behind making the Witch's primary spellcasting stat Intelligence was. As I understood the fluff / flavor, the witch gets all of her spells by communing with her familiar. It seems like Charisma or Wisdom would be a better fit. Is there any chance of something so core to the class being changed? Could someone please explain why Intelligence was chosen in this case?

Thank you much.

There's already a LOT of Charisma-based casters, and very very very few Intelligence based casters.