What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

251 to 300 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

As well two books a player and dms guide. The core is too unwieldy and heavy.

Incorporate psionics and at the very least epic from the start.


-Skills more like non weapon proficiencies from AD&D2E (that would be better).

Silver Crusade

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

Nerf Monks, Buff Wizards.


Michael Gentry wrote:

This has been said a couple of times already, but:

I would like to see the whole Core Rulebook reorganized and typographically redesigned, according to the layout and design principles used in the Basic Box and most of Paizo's hardbacks published since then. The CR as it stands is a dense, poorly organized, and not particularly attractive book.

I would like to see no substantive rules changes at all.

+1

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Nerf Monks, Buff Wizards.

Sad thing is, that's probably a valid prediction.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Nerf Monks, Buff Wizards.
Sad thing is, that's probably a valid prediction.

At least it won't turn the game into some Mister Cavern power trip enabler retroclone that smells of Gygax! :)


memorax wrote:

No class tied to a alignment. It's a pain in the behind imo. People either play Paladins as lawful dumb. Or think they are dirty harry with a sword shield. Some pull it off. Most imo don't.

Ca we stop with the "go play other rpgs if your not happy" comments. Nothing wrong with trying to improve a rpg. It may never happen yet everyone should have a say. Telling posters to go elsewhere if they are not happy is not a good thing. As well as being rude.

...

We have never had that problem.

Well, there's two sides to this issue. If what you want is certain minor tweaks, improvements, changes, options, another class- fine.

But if you want such radical changes (such as a class-less system) that Pathfinder is no longer anything even vaguely like D&D, then yes, you should go play one of the dozens of other perfectly good class-less systems out there. Don’t try to change PF into something it isn’t.

Asking for some non-vancian spell options is perfectly Ok. Demanding that Paizo dump the system that has been a hallmark of D&D since 1974 isn’t.

And, the whole “forget” the spell is flavor text, which isn’t even in PF.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DigitalMage wrote:

I think depending upon experience with other RPGs people may call a refer to a revision as a new edition.

For example Shadowrun 1st ed to 2nd ed to 3rd ed weren't major overhauls, but 4th ed was a much bigger change (less of a revision).

Equally, Call of Cthulhu has had several editions but its all still pretty much the same system.

So when I for example talk about a PF 2nd Ed I may only be thinking about small(ish) changes, i.e. the difference between PF and 3.5 rather than a complete overhaul.

Perception is everything.

To me, this is the messages that get sent with different terminology, starting with my nightmare scenario and ending with what I'd prefer to see.

Pathfinder 2.0 =
"Thanks for sticking with us 3.5-ers, now it's our turn to stick it to you"

Pathfinder 2nd Edition =
"Hey everyone, we've listened to your criticisms and made appropriate changes. You may be looking at a few new rulebooks, but not a complete replacement of your game investment. We may redo the campaign setting books to 2nd edition at some point, though."

Pathfinder 1.5 =
"Hey look! We're so cool that we even use decimal points! We've made some changes, but don't get too scared about having to replace things. At most it might mean the 'advanced' and 'ultimate' books being redone eventually, but monsters and scenarios will work as-is."

Pathfinder Revised Edition =
"We made changes. Don't worry, it's not going to cost you anything unless you want it to, there's a free mini-PDF with the changes if you don't want to buy a new rulebook."

Obviously, to the "we're happy playing any game we still own" people, most of the above may not matter, but it certainly does for those of us sitting in the "we prefer to stay current" section.


Sunderstone wrote:

Less tactical.

Nothing kills my drive to game better than having to stop the flow to map out every room and sett ing up counters.
This would get me to come back to the hobby immediately.

Can't you already play like this? The last session I GMed used a Map for the first time in a long while because most of the rules are convertible to actual time and space.


Oh, another more thing I'd love to see:

The Chebyshev distance metric. It makes movement match areas and gets rid of that horrible, clumsy every 2nd diagonal costs 2 hack and reach bands don't have thin places where the circular templates fail to match the square grid.


Atarlost wrote:

Oh, another more thing I'd love to see:

The Chebyshev distance metric. It makes movement match areas and gets rid of that horrible, clumsy every 2nd diagonal costs 2 hack and reach bands don't have thin places where the circular templates fail to match the square grid.

Hexes do it easier. One thing I liked about 3.0 is that hexes were a option. Bad change for 3.- too bad PF didn't go back to hexes.


Malwing wrote:
Sunderstone wrote:

Less tactical.

Nothing kills my drive to game better than having to stop the flow to map out every room and sett ing up counters.
This would get me to come back to the hobby immediately.
Can't you already play like this? The last session I GMed used a Map for the first time in a long while because most of the rules are convertible to actual time and space.

To a limited extent, yes. There are some feats/spells (mostly feats) that are built on positioning, then there are specific encounters in most of the AP's leaning towards the tactical approach (Kingmaker 1 comes to mind, the bandit camp in particular not the Fort).

"Meh "
YMMV as usual.


DrDeth wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Oh, another more thing I'd love to see:

The Chebyshev distance metric. It makes movement match areas and gets rid of that horrible, clumsy every 2nd diagonal costs 2 hack and reach bands don't have thin places where the circular templates fail to match the square grid.

Hexes do it easier. One thing I liked about 3.0 is that hexes were a option. Bad change for 3.- too bad PF didn't go back to hexes.

The problem is that hexes don't work well indoors. Most construction is rectangular structures. Hexes work for caves and the wilds, but not for cities or dungeons.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sunderstone wrote:

"Meh "

YMMV as usual.

Indeed. It takes much more work and description on the GM's part, but that doesn't make it better or worse.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Some replies to what has been said.

It is known that I do not like Vancian casting. I also don't believe we need to resort to using Mana either. The sorcerer "Spontaneous Casting" mechanic is a good start for a structured, system wide magic system, it is what to use to differentiate the classes and still have the Spellbook around that is the query for the developers to ponder over.

Part of the reason the Psionic power source (as another edition calls it) leaves a bitter taste in the palette for some is the fact that it uses a point system that, in this particular ruleset, can be and is abused, easily and often.

The sorcerer would, for example, concentrate on aspects of power instead of spells. The Wizard might mem his spells as he does now, but instead of being forgetful, he has cool down periods using a die, the better the spell, the bigger and more die is rolled. Training can reduce cooldowns to a set number, or eliminate them for some spells.

This is something that seems to be, in my most humble opinion, more in line with a Pathfinder game than.. *cough* Mana.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder already uses a points system. You just get multiple pools of points with limited crossover. :P


Atarlost wrote:
The Chebyshev distance metric...

Need weapon enhancement. Want Polearm of Vorpal Chebyshevity.

Atarlost wrote:
The problem is that hexes don't work well indoors. Most construction is rectangular structures. Hexes work for caves and the wilds, but not for cities or dungeons.

Just say in Golarion II that First Creator exalts hexagons. They symbol of His High Originality. He smite all deities or mortals who build rectangular rooms.

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:


We have never had that problem.

Well, there's two sides to this issue. If what you want is certain minor tweaks, improvements, changes, options, another class- fine.

But if you want such radical changes (such as a class-less system) that Pathfinder is no longer anything even vaguely like D&D, then yes, you should go play one of the dozens of other perfectly good class-less systems out there. Don’t try to change PF into something it isn’t.

Asking for some non-vancian spell options is perfectly Ok. Demanding that Paizo dump the system that has been a hallmark of D&D since 1974 isn’t.

And, the whole “forget” the spell is flavor text, which isn’t even in PF.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html

Just because your party never had problems with the Paladin they do exist. It's with certain players and a lack of what one can or cannot do with ones alignment. Would a like a new edition sure. I am in the minority. That being said it will happen. Look at Palladium a system that is in the decline because it's never ever been updated. Paizo imo has to keep publishing a version of D&D that the fans want and is profitable. Both go hand in hand. So far I think it still profitable. I'm not asking for radical changes. After all they can release a book similar to Unearthed Arcana. They can make more than one if they do them properly. Offer more new and non-traditional options. Why not let fans use a non-vancian casting system. Or both. I'm sure some fans will scream "rules bloat" Yet no one is forcing anyone to use any book. You won't convince me that telling others to go elsewhere is not being rude.


Vancian casting has metaphysical problems and will never be anything but a crude gamist hack so long as they aren't solved.

Even if you are hanging spells Amber-style any limitation must be either classical or quantum.

A classical limitation is inherently fungible. If limited by some abstract ability to hold spells in mind or whatever it should be a spell point system since the concentration or moxie or whatever required for a third level spell differs only in quantity from the concentration or moxie or whatever required for a first level spell.

A quantum limitation, such as harmonics or something analogous to electron shells, would be immutable. Either the number of top level slots would be the same for all wizards or the number of first level slots would be the same for all wizards because harmonics or metaphorical magic valence shells are mathematical and independent of the wizard using them.

Me, I prefer the first. AFAIK there's nothing in either Dying Earth or Amber that indicates different level spells use different pools of slots rather than a single pool of memory or concentration or whatever. If it's absolutely 100% indispensable for game balance I suppose option two is tolerable, but the system should be adjusted to fit sensible metaphysics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
Even if you are hanging spells Amber-style any limitation must be either classical or quantum.

This isn't a binary choice. You may not LIKE the setup, but that doesn't mean it can't be set that way.


memorax wrote:

[

Just because your party never had problems with the Paladin they do exist. It's with certain players and a lack of what one can or cannot do with ones alignment. ...Offer more new and non-traditional options. Why not let fans use a non-vancian casting system. Or both.

CN is more problematic that LG in just about any game.

PF does- they are called "Sorcerers" and "Oracles". PF, like D20 has both Vancian and non-vancian. They ever have Words of Power.


DrDeth wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Oh, another more thing I'd love to see:

The Chebyshev distance metric. It makes movement match areas and gets rid of that horrible, clumsy every 2nd diagonal costs 2 hack and reach bands don't have thin places where the circular templates fail to match the square grid.

Hexes do it easier. One thing I liked about 3.0 is that hexes were a option. Bad change for 3.- too bad PF didn't go back to hexes.

Wait, huh? Since when did hexes not work in PF?!? Or 3.5 for that matter?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Even if you are hanging spells Amber-style any limitation must be either classical or quantum.
This isn't a binary choice. You may not LIKE the setup, but that doesn't mean it can't be set that way.

Either a system is quantum or it's not.

In any classical system the basis of preparation or casting is fungible.

In any quantum system there is a basis for quanta. The commonly given analogy is valence shells, but valence shells have fixed capacities for reasons that owe to immutable math rather than to any property of the components of the system.

I can tell you what a mana caster uses to cast his spells and how it works metaphysically. It's a quantity of something that is expended.

I can tell you what the excuse for spell levels I've most often seen (the valence analogy) should look like. It has spell capacities defined either by electron orbitals or by the packing density of concentric n dimensional spheres. What it doesn't have is bonus spell slots or changes to the number of slots by leveling other than gaining access to new spell levels.

I can also tell you what a harmonics based system would look like. One (or two if you have an excuse for not being able to use the base frequency to store a spell) nth level spell where n is the highest level you can cast and an additional spell level for each below with the caveat that if you can cast spells of a level that don't exist you get those slots added for the highest level that does exist.

I can take candidate metaphysics and construct systems that reflect them, but the current system is a hack and sensible metaphysics cannot be constructed to fit a hack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Metaphysics don't have to be sensible. You can have planes of existence where the correct answer to everything is 'giant frog'.

The whole of alignment boils down to 'because we wrote it that way'.

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:


CN is more problematic that LG in just about any game.

PF does- they are called "Sorcerers" and "Oracles". PF, like D20 has both Vancian and non-vancian. They ever have Words of Power.

Agreed about CN. Again I think they need to codify and really explain in point form what a character who picks a alignment can do. Rather than leave it too open and up to interpretation imo. Sorcerers stil lsuffer from the amnesia with spells. It's less noticeable because they can cast more. I can't comment on Oracles have never seen or played one. Nothing wrong with offering new options along existing ones.


SmiloDan wrote:

So if you had Stength 13.87 at 1st level, and rolled 11 on d%, you would have 13.98 Strenth at 2nd level. At 3rd level, you might roll 45% and increase your Strength to 14.43, so your bonus would increase from +1 to +2.

The only problem I see with this system is making high level characters. Would you assume 50% every 2 levels?

Actually, in both editions of Hackmaster you rolled specific dice for it.

Quick lesson: Dice for most things [not HP] penetrate: That's just the regular exploding dice idea save for two exceptions: d20s use a d6 when penetrating, and penetrating always has non-cumulative -1 on the die value. So if you had 13.87 and, say, put a d20 there - you're wanting it to go up after all. You roll, get 8? you're now at 13.95. Damn.

Then you put that d10 into Constitution, get a 10. Die penetrates [still considered the same one roll - don't forget about any other dice you roll when doing damage] you roll a 10 again, so you keep going, then a 1. Since the dice are at -1 while penetrating you thus add 9 and 0. Total is 19% added to the stat.

For high level characters the average die value could be used, though hackmaster doesn't do high level starts, and if it did you'd have to roll them all manually. Average value of a penetrating die is .5 higher, so 4 for a d6, 6 for a d10, etc, in case that helps.

Regarding Vancian: A far larger problem with vancian casting has always been that "each spell has to be worth it". Of course it does, this much is obvious. But unfortunately, because it must be worth it not only in the action economy but also in your [originally, back in Dying Earth, and to a slightly lesser degree in 2e] highly limited uses per day after which you find yourself quite useless, each vancian spell was made extremely powerful. Or useless and no one actually ever takes it, but that's just a side effect of bad design and/or ivory-tower philosophy trying to see if you're stupid enough to choose wrong.

Hackmaster makes first level mages FAR more capable in non-magical aspects to compensate for the slower power progression of their spells, and the lack of autoscaling [you want extra missiles, you pump in more spell points]. Stick a big polearm on your wizard and have him stab from second-rank, you'll help the party far more than emptying half your daily power on a single firefinger. You'll also deal significantly more damage in one swing.

Psionics also do it this way with augmentation, but the one you wanna look at for value versus opportunity cost is probably the Warlock or DFA...


I keep seeing comments implying PF needs to be D&D. Paizo deserves more credit than that. Sure PF started from a seed that fell from the D&D tree, but its much better than D&D was even at its best


I see you guys talking about alignment. I sometimes run into problems with that part of the book that says you can be lawful to yur own code. People use that as an excuse to act chaotic. I usually omit that and I have no issues. I love the alignment system, it defines the game. All players need a firm grasp of it though and they usually don't

Shadow Lodge

jimibones83 wrote:
I keep seeing comments implying PF needs to be D&D. Paizo deserves more credit than that. Sure PF started from a seed that fell from the D&D tree, but its much better than D&D was even at its best

While I disagree with the second part of your statement, I agree with the first. Paizo shouldn't chain Pathfinder to being a 3.X clone forevermore. Even Monte Cooke has managed to recently discover that that just because a system isn't a d20 variant, that doesn't necessarily mean it is beneath contempt. And that man was the king of churning out d20 editions of games that were far more suited for other systems.

Shadow Lodge

jimibones83 wrote:
I keep seeing comments implying PF needs to be D&D. Paizo deserves more credit than that. Sure PF started from a seed that fell from the D&D tree, but its much better than D&D was even at its best

Even if you mean just 3.5, then you may find a lot of people disagree with that.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in no hurry for a revision, but if we're just talking about what we'd like Pathfinder to look like, my thoughts would be something like this:

-Cut down on the number of situational bonuses (i.e., "+2 to save versus poisons," "+1 to Perception checks based on hearing," "+2 to Spellcraft checks made to identify magic items"). Don't eliminate them - just ask whether something really needs to be situational or not. (i.e., Could "+2 to save versus poison" be replaced by "+1 to Fortitude saves"?)

-Toss the Fly skill and find another way to handle flight in combat.

-Merge Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft.

-Get rid of encumbrance or find a simpler way to track it. Saves me the trouble of having to handwave it away.

-Smooth out attacks of opportunity a bit more.

-Decrease the need for items that just give a magical plus to something. Maybe magic weapons only get a +1 or +2 and then any more powerful weapons would be represented through special properties. Lower save DCs so cloaks of resistance aren't a necessity. Maybe add a defense bonus that rises with level so rings of protection don't need to be a thing. Reduce the need for these items so they're nice to have but aren't needed by those who would rather use their item slots for something more interesting.

-Move prestige classes to an Advanced Player's Guide revision or something. They're cool, but not necessarily needed in the core anymore.

-Change the presentation somewhat, taking a cue from the Beginner's Box where possible.

That is, of course, just stuff that would fit my gaming preferences. I'm not in a hurry for a new edition, but when there is one I hope it will be more tweaks and changes rather than rebuilding the game from the ground up.


DM Beckett wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
I keep seeing comments implying PF needs to be D&D. Paizo deserves more credit than that. Sure PF started from a seed that fell from the D&D tree, but its much better than D&D was even at its best
Even if you mean just 3.5, then you may find a lot of people disagree with that.

I guess I should say 3e and all subsequent editions. I never played before 3e but I've played weekly+ since it was published. Then 4e came out and I was dissatisfied enough to seek another game which led me to PF


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Metaphysics don't have to be sensible. You can have planes of existence where the correct answer to everything is 'giant frog'.

The whole of alignment boils down to 'because we wrote it that way'.

Nonsensical rules with narrative impact degrade the setting and any narrative set in the setting.


@ Charlie Brooks - nice list. That's one of the few point-by-point lists in this thread I (almost) entirely agree with!


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
@ Charlie Brooks - nice list. That's one of the few point-by-point lists in this thread I (almost) entirely agree with!

Yes, those are mostly reasonable points.

Let's just make encumbrance a optional rule. Some folks love it. Myself, I agree, it just gets in the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

An Evil Lincoln Encumbrance hack:
For this trick, you need a stack of index cards, preferably on the small side, a marker, and a ruler.

Each item gets a card. You can write whatever you want about the item on the card. Along one edge of the card, draw a thick line with the marker. The length of this line corresponds to the weight of the item. Different characters may need different exchange rates, but for the sake of example say 10 pounds equals one centimeter. Kits and bags that can be easily dropped and picked up can share a single card (possibly with the lesser weights marked also).

Then, on the side of the character sheet, mark out the different load categories for your strength — for a strength of ten you'd have 0-3.3 cm, 3.4-6.6 cm, and 6.7-10 cm.

When you need to check your load, just line up the weight lines on the edge of each card and compare to the edge of your character sheet.

In this way it is very easy to add, drop, swap, and ditch items to reach certain weight categories.

Enjoy!


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Thats..that's...evil. ;-)


Another pet peeve:

No class should have less than 4+int skill points per level with the possible exception of int based casters.

No non-casting class should have only one good save.

No non-casting class should have less than full BAB.


Atarlost wrote:
Nonsensical rules with narrative impact degrade the setting and any narrative set in the setting.

Ah, I take it that you have changed your argument from 'cannot be' to 'should not be' then?


MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Nonsensical rules with narrative impact degrade the setting and any narrative set in the setting.
Ah, I take it that you have changed your argument from 'cannot be' to 'should not be' then?

Cannot without being a stupid gamist hack. Same as it's been all along. There is no reason to tolerate gamist hacks on something as directly simulationist and directly narrativist as a magic system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Metaphysics don't have to be sensible. You can have planes of existence where the correct answer to everything is 'giant frog'.

The whole of alignment boils down to 'because we wrote it that way'.

Nonsensical rules with narrative impact degrade the setting and any narrative set in the setting.

dude lol, yur vocabulary is so unfamiliar to the way I naturally speak I had to roll a decipher script check

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Cannot without being a stupid gamist hack.

Okay, just a personal dislike. Got it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I find the idea of a simulationist magic system amusing. Wizards pore over musty tomes, then chant and wiggle their fingers whilst nothing happens. :p


DrDeth wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
@ Charlie Brooks - nice list. That's one of the few point-by-point lists in this thread I (almost) entirely agree with!

Yes, those are mostly reasonable points.

Let's just make encumbrance a optional rule. Some folks love it. Myself, I agree, it just gets in the way.

It already is an optional rule. Nothing else in the game depends on it. Taking it out requires virtually no work.


More flexibility in running the game and world design. The ability to say 'This game world has no magic in it', for example, and not have to restructure giant parts of the rules because the 'game expects' certain things to be true. Or to just do things like 'no arcane magic' or 'no divine magic' or whatever, and the system still works with, at worst, minor adjustments.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I find the idea of a simulationist magic system amusing. Wizards pore over musty tomes, then chant and wiggle their fingers whilst nothing happens. :p

Despite liking the idea of a fantasy magic simulation, your post did make me laugh at the idea of a new class with special rules for hiding playing cards and making use of cabinets with false backs.


Zhayne wrote:
More flexibility in running the game and world design. The ability to say 'This game world has no magic in it', for example, and not have to restructure giant parts of the rules because the 'game expects' certain things to be true. Or to just do things like 'no arcane magic' or 'no divine magic' or whatever, and the system still works with, at worst, minor adjustments.

Aaand they lose me as a customer. I mean, there's Iron heroes. Fantasy Hero, many others- why again try to hammer the square peg that is D&D into the round hole which is a mundane game?


As Chaotic Evil monster, much like tomes that make readers insane. But time spent on forum make think this already done.

Next publish book of spells look ancient have stuff fall out from between pages. Pinch of salt. Pretty feather. Lizard scales. Human hair. Treasure map. Scrap paper with music notes for angelic melody. Strip of cow hide with inky final verse of ritual.


I would hope that there isn't a Pathfinder 2 for at least another decade. Paizo just needs to watch D&D Next crash and burn and be ready to pick up the victims. Making a Pathfinder 2 this early will just chase people away and fracture the industry even more than it currently is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
jimibones83 wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
I keep seeing comments implying PF needs to be D&D. Paizo deserves more credit than that. Sure PF started from a seed that fell from the D&D tree, but its much better than D&D was even at its best
Even if you mean just 3.5, then you may find a lot of people disagree with that.
I guess I should say 3e and all subsequent editions. I never played before 3e but I've played weekly+ since it was published. Then 4e came out and I was dissatisfied enough to seek another game which led me to PF

I guess you should say in your opinion PF is much better than D&D was even at its best.

I on the other hand would be one of the people DM Beckett indicated would disagree with you. For me PF is not better than D&D; if I had the choice between a 3.5 and PF game in the same setting (and that wasn't PFS) I would always choose the 3.5 game, and further if I had a choice between a 4e and a PF game in the same setting I would always choose the 4e game (everything else being equal).

So yeah, it's always worth adding an "IMHO".

251 to 300 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.