Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG)

I'm getting it anyway.

Who are we kidding.....with the exception of the Kobold book....I have ordered everything released 0.O

I'm just happy to have a big book o' archetypes and PrCs!

I'm certainly skeptical about how much this book will be useful to me, given I've never been much for organizations, but I'm at least willing to give it a shot and see what we get by way of archetypes, feats, spells, and other generally useful things.

I hope (and I think Paizo's people have the skill to deliver) for a modular approach to the crunch in this book so that if you play in Golarion you can introduce it right away through association with the listed organizations and if you don't, then it takes little to zero effort to unplug the crunch from the organization and install it in your game setting however you see fit

Removed a handful of posts. Folks, it's perfectly fine if others voice an opinion that this book may not be of interest to them. There's no reason to escalate the conversation. Additionally, we really need products to stay centered on the product they're specifically about.

I am hoping for a new Aldori Swordlord prc because I was not a fan of the original (I think I am missing something in how to play them) or at least a different Aldori sword duelist. As there is one archetype for the aldori sword lord then we should get another and it would be interesting to see a unchained rogue or magus archetype for it.

Edit: I forgot about the Swashbuckler for another class to get an archetype. But I would rather them adjust the original archetype to work with the swashbuckler and the fighter then make a new one specifically for the swash.

A new Cypher Mage and a Gray Maiden prestige class are both very exciting. I'm not too keen on a (fourth?) Hellknight Prestige Class, but I understand it's one of the favorite organizations in the setting. I guess it'll be the 3/4 BAB skill monkey Hellknight? Or maybe a Summoner? I hope we get at least one Sovereign Court class. Don't get me wrong, I love my Lion Blade but the class itself is really, really funky for players to use. A vigilante red mantis assassin archetype would be really, really cool.

I don't think there's even a third Hellknight prestige class yet; only Hellknight and Hellknight Signifer. This book would have to add two new ones. (Which it could, of course. Who knows?)

If it does, I think there will be a rogue/skill monkey Hellknight as speculated above (because Hellknights need spies and infiltrators to root out lawbreakers), and an Occult/Psychic PrC. Since people have asked for better integration of psychics and Hellknights.

Will there be Silver Crusade specific PRC?

No doubt I'm very late to the party, but I thought Golarion-specific stuff was released via the campaign setting line, not RPG line?

No doubt I'm very late to the party, but I thought Golarion-specific stuff was released via the campaign setting line, not RPG line?

This is an experimental departure from that paradigm (although not a total departure - I believe the goal is for there to also be lots of useful material for people who don't play in Golarion).

No doubt I'm very late to the party, but I thought Golarion-specific stuff was released via the campaign setting line, not RPG line?

That has heretofore been the policy, yes. This book is an experiment in crossing the two lines.

I'm excited about it (and not just because I wrote a bunch of stuff in this book); I'd like to see more such books in the future. Some folks aren't interested in that yet, though (which is fine).

This is an experimental departure from that paradigm (although not a total departure - I believe the goal is for there to also be lots of useful material for people who don't play in Golarion).

I see. Thank you for the explanation.

A new Cypher Mage and a Gray Maiden prestige class are both very exciting. I'm not too keen on a (fourth?) Hellknight Prestige Class, but I understand it's one of the favorite organizations in the setting. I guess it'll be the 3/4 BAB skill monkey Hellknight? Or maybe a Summoner? I hope we get at least one Sovereign Court class. Don't get me wrong, I love my Lion Blade but the class itself is really, really funky for players to use. A vigilante red mantis assassin archetype would be really, really cool.

I am thinking one of the hellknight PRC's will be reprinted in this but hope I am wrong. I second your idea for the Red mantis assassin PRC would be cool.

I hope that if the Campaign Setting/RPG line mix is successful, that they keep some things the same. I have children who play Pathfinder and pore over books for hours at a time, and I have found that all the rpg rulebooks are appropriate for them but many of the campaign setting books aren't (in particular, I minimize their exposure to Zon Kuthon and Lamashtu). I am concerned that this may be the first hardcover rule book that is not OK for them.

I've been pushing for a stronger mix between the rulebooks and the campaign setting more or less from day one, so I for one am DELIGHTED we're finally starting to do this. There's a bit more campaign setting in Bestiary 6 as well (and in fact, there's been campaign setting material in ALL of the Bestiaries... just not many proper nouns).

Who knows, maybe we'll come full circle and turn into 3.0, where Golarion becomes the default setting for the core line. Sure would make a lot of things easier.

Who knows, maybe we'll come full circle and turn into 3.0, where Golarion becomes the default setting for the core line. Sure would make a lot of things easier.

That's actually how it's already been from the start; that's why the Core Rulebook lists the core 20 deities it does, and why the Bestiaries have the monsters they do, and why the Gamemastery Guide lists the outer planes it does.

There's more Golarion already in our core rules than there ever was Greyhawk in 3.0 D&D.

I just have always thought, in both cases, there could and should be more.

Dark Midian wrote:

Who knows, maybe we'll come full circle and turn into 3.0, where Golarion becomes the default setting for the core line. Sure would make a lot of things easier.

That's actually how it's already been from the start; that's why the Core Rulebook lists the core 20 deities it does, and why the Bestiaries have the monsters they do, and why the Gamemastery Guide lists the outer planes it does.

There's more Golarion already in our core rules than there ever was Greyhawk in 3.0 D&D.

I just have always thought, in both cases, there could and should be more.

Well, I guess that's true, but in regards to the deities bit there really should haven been a small section in the CRB dedicated to describing the deities with a little more flavor than their name, alignment, and domains, like in 3.5. Even washed-out, generic flavoring would have been better than "Hey, here are some deities with only mechanical descriptions that you have to buy OTHER products to get some actual context for!"

There's a bit more campaign setting in Bestiary 6 as well

I was worried about that inevitability with the number of unique creatures that seem in the book.

There's more Golarion already in our core rules than there ever was Greyhawk in 3.0 D&D.

*Looks at the Core of 3.5e having deities with descriptions and planes that match greyhawks*

I'd say that it's pretty close, but PF is further away because of Golarion being abit less generic than Greyhawk (though I did like bytopia).

I just have always thought, in both cases, there could and should be more.

I hope that this experiment proves successful because I'm used to using certain systems depending on the setting I want to play in. If not for Golarion and the APs, I would probably stayed 3.5 just because it's easier to run the Realms and Eberron just with the system the settings have been written for. It's also why I never felt the need to give all those d20 hacks for Cthulhu, WoD and whoknowswhat any attention. If I wanna play Cthulhu, I use CoC rules (and so on)

Now I appreciate that PFRPG is open for other settings to be used (Midgard and the Lost Lands are favorites of mine) but I also think that it's easy enough to translate Golarion-specific options into those settings if you want to use them there. As they are for homebrew settings, so I don't feel the need to be specifically generic, when for Golarion players those options might be much easier to use if they are world-specific instead.

So the only thing that makes me a bit concerned about this experiment is that I normally seem to be in a minority position with my preferences. But I would love to be proven wrong here. ;)

Dark Midian wrote:

Who knows, maybe we'll come full circle and turn into 3.0, where Golarion becomes the default setting for the core line. Sure would make a lot of things easier.

That's actually how it's already been from the start; that's why the Core Rulebook lists the core 20 deities it does, and why the Bestiaries have the monsters they do, and why the Gamemastery Guide lists the outer planes it does.

There's more Golarion already in our core rules than there ever was Greyhawk in 3.0 D&D.

I just have always thought, in both cases, there could and should be more.

Why bother having a campaign line of books then, isn't that all you need? It's 64 pages a month of material. You build an RPG to also work with other RPG settings with very little interference from Golarion material, but now it feels like there is permission to alienate a demographic with their homebrew settings or those running something from a D&D setting.

I always assumed the happy medium was more generic material, and extremely light Golarion material, in the core line, and the heavy campaign stuff in the campaign line?

Speaking of planes, I'm bit confused why setting generic books has Utopia instead of Axis, Purgatory instead of Boneyard and Limbo instead of Maelstrom .-.

I mean, I get that Utopia isn't identical to Axis and so on, but I'm not sure why neutral aligned planes are only ones which are different in Golarion & setting generic books

but now it feels like there is permission to alienate a demographic with their homebrew settings or those running something from a D&D setting.

I always wonder where the alienation comes from setting-specific rules option (I get that the wizards always seemed to have this problem with their customers which is why they did certain things in 4e the way they did them; I also get that some people would rather have more generic options in a given book and feel that the campaign stuff takes space away from that, so if it's all about that, then I can see that).

But (and I only speak for myself here) I like to steep rules options heavily in setting lore, so if I want to use , let's say a prestige class, I have to put the same amount of work in setting integration, no matter if it is a generic prc or one specific to another setting. From this standpoint, using the Rage Prophet from APG in the Realms or my homebrew takes the same amount of work as using the Ashavic Dancer from Path of the Righteous does, difference being that I just have to ignore the setting stuff attached to the Dancer, though that stuff might even give me a better idea about how to use it in my setting of choice than just the generic rules stuff would do.

So how does Golarion-specific material interferes with other settings when it's just a matter of ignoring it, if you just want to use the mechanics and would have to write up your own setting stuff anyways?

Because no one can tell me that filing of the "Ashavic" from the Ashavic dancer amounts to any kind of work even worth mentioning.

Yeah, I have to say same thing that I find it hard to understand why would homebrewers be alienated by setting content.

I mean, I know for fact that a lot of gms use content from psfrd without realizing some of it is setting specific content renamed to be lame and bland(red mantis assassin -> crimson assassin. Seriously why, how is red mantis any more setting specific term than crimson?). And "setting generic" books still do have setting even if its really unspecified. Like with Villain Codex, you can picture the setting just by reading what the villain factions are like and how they are connected even if its really unspecific.

And even core rulebook has setting content, it has 20 Golarion gods and pathfinder chronicler prestige class even though it doesn't tell what pathfinders actually are(which is the real way bestiaries and such make the content "generic" they just avoid saying directly names of places. Of course there are few exceptions were bestiary descriptions are non canon to Golarion, which is why I'm really annoyed by the setting genericness in first place) :P Are you people who are alienate by setting content saying that you wouldn't allow person to play pathfinder chronicler in game called pathfinder?

Hi all, do we know how much stuff is reprinted from the campaign settings/player companion?

Seeing how it won't come out for another 2 months? Nada.

I always wonder where the alienation comes from setting-specific rules option (I get that the wizards always seemed to have this problem with their customers which is why they did certain things in 4e the way they did them; I also get that some people would rather have more generic options in a given book and feel that the campaign stuff takes space away from that, so if it's all about that, then I can see that).

It's like, I'm not going to buy a book about sports, because I'm not interested in sports. If a person doesn't like x setting, they're probably not going to be interested in a book of setting x material.

So how does Golarion-specific material interferes with other settings when it's just a matter of ignoring it, if you just want to use the mechanics and would have to write up your own setting stuff anyways?

Why spend money on products where I'll having to find places to fit it in when I could spend my very finite money on a different product which can be put into any setting without work, where I don't have to spend money on paragraphs about things I wont ever read?

Buying setting-tied stuff would basically be me spending full price on a book I only want to read 30% of.

I'm in one camp, but I can definitely understand the argument from both sides. That's why Paizo is doing this experiment: it's going to figure out how strong the "I won't buy it if it's too much Golarion" camp compared to the "Everything should be Golarion" camp and make future publishing decisions accordingly. It might continue splitting the difference, or it might start changing the way it's been doing business for a decade now.

After having to wrangle most of Paizo's hardcovers into Golarion, it's a nice to see one that I won't have to.

Why spend money on products where I'll having to find places to fit it in when I could spend my very finite money on a different product which can be put into any setting without work

So does that mean that if you're interested in a rules option, you just put it in your game without giving any thought about if and how it fits into your setting? And if not, how is it easier to invent your own stuff for generic material than for setting specific material, if the only additional step is to simply ignore the added setting-specific stuff? Because the work is in inventing your own stuff, ignoring what's already written takes mere seconds.

Buying setting-tied stuff would basically be me spending full price on a book I only want to read 30% of.

That I already said I can understand. Though I'll also admit that this is basically what I get if I spend money on a generic book. I probably didn't even read more than 10% of the rule books, probably using even less, because I'm with Gorbacz on this. I already have to do this with any 3pp material i want to use, so I really could do without doing the same for stuff written by the same people who already wrote the setting I want to use the stuff in.

There is of course a larger financial benefit for the customers.

If this book was released in the campaign setting line we would be charged about $25.00 for the PDF. However in the main RPG line the PDF costs only about $10.00.

So even if you think this should be in the campaign setting line of products, you have to admit this is more financially compassionate towards pur otherwise tortured wallets. :)

Why bother having a campaign line of books then, isn't that all you need? It's 64 pages a month of material.

It's not even close enough to "all I need," no.

So does that mean that if you're interested in a rules option, you just put it in your game without giving any thought about if and how it fits into your setting?

Generally, non-setting tied stuff doesn't need much/any thought on how it fits. It generally already does fit.

And if not, how is it easier to invent your own stuff for generic material than for setting specific material, if the only additional step is to simply ignore the added setting-specific stuff? Because the work is in inventing your own stuff, ignoring what's already written takes mere seconds.

Because decently often, the mechanics also have setting-tied things. Plus often the flavour only makes sense in a certain context or is different enough that to include it you'd probably have to add in a new organisation or nation that has it. Though there are examples of such stuff in RPG-line already, I actually sorta banned druid from my settings simply because of it's mechanics having the assumption that there is some druidic organisation.

That I already said I can understand. Though I'll also admit that this is basically what I get if I spend money on a generic book. I probably didn't even read more than 10% of the rule books, probably using even less, because I'm with Gorbacz on this. I already have to do this with any 3pp material i want to use, so I really could do without doing the same for stuff written by the same people who already wrote the setting I want to use the stuff in.

Then why buy it, that seems odd.

A Cypher mage Archetype that helped build on the existing PrC (like what's been done for the Winter Witch, and Swordlord) would be awesome.

WormysQueue wrote:

So does that mean that if you're interested in a rules option, you just put it in your game without giving any thought about if and how it fits into your setting?

Generally, non-setting tied stuff doesn't need much/any thought on how it fits. It generally already does fit.

Quote:

And if not, how is it easier to invent your own stuff for generic material than for setting specific material, if the only additional step is to simply ignore the added setting-specific stuff? Because the work is in inventing your own stuff, ignoring what's already written takes mere seconds.

Because decently often, the mechanics also have setting-tied things. Plus often the flavour only makes sense in a certain context or is different enough that to include it you'd probably have to add in a new organisation or nation that has it. Though there are examples of such stuff in RPG-line already, I actually sorta banned druid from my settings simply because of it's mechanics having the assumption that there is some druidic organisation.

Quote:

That I already said I can understand. Though I'll also admit that this is basically what I get if I spend money on a generic book. I probably didn't even read more than 10% of the rule books, probably using even less, because I'm with Gorbacz on this. I already have to do this with any 3pp material i want to use, so I really could do without doing the same for stuff written by the same people who already wrote the setting I want to use the stuff in.

Then why buy it, that seems odd.

Umm, why you banned druid instead of just removing the druidic language? .-.

I love anything that adds more Golarion specific information, which is why I have a subscription to both the Player's Companion and Campaign Setting lines.

Honestly, I fee like Golarion is pretty close to a perfect world, able to more or less run any type of game you could desire.

Which is why I desperately hope and pray to Sarenrae that the Campaign Setting line continues, despite the various blank spots in my subscription.

Generally, non-setting tied stuff doesn't need much/any thought on how it fits. It generally already does fit.

Maybe that's where our disconnect lies, because I don't feel this way, like at all. For example I don't think that the Kineticist (which I generally like) does simply fit into Golarion without any need to explain how this class came to be. So if Paizo doesn't give me an explanation, I have to make it up for myself. Where do they come from, how did they originate, all that stuff. Same for archetypes, prcs, monsters, basically anything. In fact, if I have some complaint about Path of the Righteous, it is the lack of those bits of knowledge. But at least, and staying with the example of the Ashavic Dancer I can read up on Ashava and make an informed guess by myself thereafter.

So the promise to get background information on the "history, goals and leadership" of the organizations in this new book really fills my heart with joy, even if that means we get less PrCs and archetypes and other character options than possible without this stuff. Because if I want to play an Aldori Swordlord, the Aldori part might be much more important to me than the swordlord part.

I actually sorta banned druid from my settings simply because of it's mechanics having the assumption that there is some druidic organisation.

The only thing that comes to my mind here is the druidic language, but that could be, again, simply ignored. Did I miss something?

Then why buy it, that seems odd.

To be honest, I buy only the pdf version and even that is more to support Paizo than because I want to have them. I have some of the german hardcovers but those I got as a gift, so practically, they don't count.

On the other hand, I have a lot of those player companions meshing setting stuff and rules. I even prefer those when stealing for my homebrew because the fluff tends to inspire me as much if not mure as the crunch does.

I still want one of these for every historic society. I want a eastern European setting a feudal japan setting a Norse tribal setting etc.etc.etc. I would eat that up. Might require some creativity for the caster classes but i'm sure there is plenty of mythos to draw from.

Oh yeah, I wonder if we learn more about Decemvirate

Like I know from running moonscar that one of Decemvirate members has cameo in beginning, but does like each Decemvirate member have different mask so they can tell each other apart even if they don't know each other's identities?

Maybe that's where our disconnect lies, because I don't feel this way, like at all. For example I don't think that the Kineticist (which I generally like) does simply fit into Golarion without any need to explain how this class came to be. So if Paizo doesn't give me an explanation, I have to make it up for myself. Where do they come from, how did they originate, all that stuff.

All that sorta stuff tends to easily found out by just looking at the class. For example, with kineticist. Where do they come from? Anywhere that overlaps with the ethereal plane, since trauma can happen to anyone and the class works by tapping into the ethereal plane. How did they originate? Trauma causing individual's minds to tap into the ethereal plane.

The only thing that comes to my mind here is the druidic language, but that could be, again, simply ignored. Did I miss something?

Also the weird "you cannot use metal armour" and "here have some scimitars for no reason" aspects which don't really make sense in a lot of settings. Also, if I have a thing where I do teeny weeny edits to one class, I'll probably end up having to go through many classes to tweak them so the fact of only having one teeny weeny change amoungst many many giant changes doesn't annoy me + druid's broken anyway + hunter works as a balanced druid anyway, so not a big loss to just ban it.

Admittedly, those elements of druid have a smaller impact on play than the "mechanics tied to fluff" of the Cavalier... Definitely removing edicts when I do my cavalier fix.

I always thought the "no metal armor" thing was because nature itself didn't like it, or something. You can lose your powers for wearing metal armor, after all, whereas you can use any weapon you like.

Also, as a favor, does anyone have a list of which organizations have been officially confirmed for this book?

The druid no metal armor is grandfathered in from 1st edition. they based the class on a historical druid group. Its like how clerics could use maces but not swords.

The druid no metal armor is grandfathered in from 1st edition. they based the class on a historical druid group. Its like how clerics could use maces but not swords.

Except druids in real life never had any issues with metal... the druid class basically just takes the name from the real life druids but nothing else.