Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG)

3.30/5 (based on 32 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Hardcover $39.99

Add PDF $9.99

Add Non-Mint $39.99 $29.99

Facebook Twitter Email

Join Us!

Being an adventurer is a dangerous line of work, but the rewards are well worth the risk. The smartest adventurers never go it alone—they not only bring allies to help explore the dangerous reaches of the world, but also seek aid in the form of support, supplies, and secrets from powerful organizations. With such a group to serve as a guide, an adventuring party's chances for success have never been better!

Pathfinder RPG Adventurer's Guide presents several such organizations, each with its own suite of benefits and boons to grant those affiliated with it. Designed for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and drawing upon the rich traditions of the official Pathfinder campaign setting, this indispensable guide for adventurers provides a wealth of new character options for your game.

Pathfinder RPG Adventurer's Guide includes:

  • Details on 18 different organizations that use adventurers to further their goals, including the law-enforcing Hellknights, the sinister assassins of the Red Mantis, and of course, the world-renowned Pathfinder Society itself.
  • A wealth of new player options, including feats, spells, magic items, prestige classes, archetypes, and new abilities and powers for a wide range of classes.
  • Rules and advice on how to incorporate the new options found in this book into your own game, whether it takes place in the official Pathfinder campaign setting or in a world of your own choice or design.
  • Notes on the movers and shakers of each organization—nonplayer characters who can come alive in your game as allies and advisors for the player characters.
  • AND MUCH, MUCH MORE!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-938-7

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Hardcover:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1138


See Also:

1 to 5 of 32 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

3.30/5 (based on 32 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Deepens My Investment in Golarion

5/5

I didn’t expect to find such a connection to this book, having not played the APs that touch on the various groups contained herein (and also just generally hating hellknights), but hoo-boy was I surprised.

The writing is lovely, the characters and organizations are vivid, and the player options are exciting and well-designed. The gray maidens chapter in particular blew me away in particular. The mechanics of their player options are a pedect combination of flavorful and mechanically effective, and have the added bonus of fitting together into a coherent and effective character build.


Great Book!

5/5

Read my full review on Of Dice and Pen.

These days, it can take a lot for a book focused on new feats, spells, etc. to impress me. I’ve reached a saturation point. There are so many options now that I can’t keep track of them all, and most new ones get forgotten soon after I read them. Adventurer’s Guide is one of the few books that stays in my mind and keeps pulling me back to it. I can’t recommend it enough!


The worst core line offering by far

1/5

The title is misleading, as was posited by many during the product preview, and mealy-mouthedly denied by Paizo. This is a Golarion book, period, which has no place in the core line, and the contents consist of an insultingly large percentage of reprints. Shameful, really.


Good Product if New

4/5

Soooo...I'm going to say that I obsessively collect Pathfinder products, and as such, much of this material is old hat for me. Emphasis here is 'for me.' With that said, I want to examine this in a vacuum.

The artwork is good, but then, it's been good. It serves more as a 'Faction Guide 2' for me than anything, giving some details about the various organizations, class options, feats, and ties. In particular, though, I like that I don't have to flip through two or three books to get character options for the factions. Hellknights in particular were always a pain due to how diffuse their rules were. I can now hand this book to a person and say "here ya go. Here's some ideas of factions in the setting."

One drawback, as has been mentioned, is spoilers for the various APs. While I use those sparingly, it can be somewhat problematic, and I'd suggest steering players away from this if that's the case.

Overall, it's a decent enough product. If you're new to the setting, it's worth picking up as a nice collected list. If you're old hat, a few options inside are interesting enough, and a few setting updates are worth examining. I'm particularly interested in the Lantern Bearers' new direction.


Solid addition with some faults

4/5

This book helps clear up and collect a lot of older material, balanced now with other released material for GMs. It also adds in a wealth of new material for factions of Adventurers across Golarion.

What's good?
A solid collection of old and new under one singular heading.

What's bad?
Some factions contain major spoilers, making it hard for a GM to just pass off to players who may be playing certain APs.

What's fun?
Inclusion of multiple races and creeds and even transgendered factions and npcs in multiple parts of the book. This book really fleshed out some factions which had little to no crunch.

What's odd?
Certain feats are fun but others are less the useable. A feat that allows a bonus on maneuvers but doesn't stack with improved maneuver feats? Those are the ones that help avoid AoO. So what's the point of the feat? Additionally a heads up to some people about the amount of reprints would have calmed an angry section of customers.

Honestly I love the book and can't wait to try out some of the new material and some of the updated versions of older (and due to other books options more unbalanced) options.

When you get past the salty tears of angry optimizers, you're left with a fine entry into the guides section with Inner Seas flavour.


1 to 5 of 32 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
501 to 550 of 1,453 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Gorbacz wrote:
I'm getting it anyway.

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


7 people marked this as a favorite.

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


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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

Community & Digital Content Director

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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
bugleyman wrote:
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).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
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).


Steve Geddes wrote:
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.

Dark Archive

KitsuneWarlock wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

17 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
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!"


James Jacobs wrote:
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.

Quote:
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*

*Looks at the Core of PF, with only purely mechanical descriptions of the deity, and planes which nearly match golarion (Note limbo not maelstrom, purgatory not boneyard, utopia not axis), and how clerics work differently in Core to Golarion*

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).

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
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. ;)


James Jacobs wrote:
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?

Dark Archive

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

The Exchange

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Geramies wrote:
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.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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


WormysQueue wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Geramies wrote:
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.


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.


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.

Dark Archive

Milo v3 wrote:
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? .-.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Dark Archive

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?


WormysQueue wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
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.

501 to 550 of 1,453 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.