I've recently been doing searches for companies still writing generic Pathfinder 1e material. I found this on the search. I really hate PF2e and prefer more PF1e material and I'm not having much luck finding someone who is carrying the torch so I can give them my support. If people can offer suggestions, let me know.
Thank you.
What kind of products are you looking for? More races? More classes and archetypes? Bloodlines for sorcerers and bloodragers? Mythic? Adventures from level 1-20? Backgrounds? Feats? Monsters?
We’re definitely keeping an eye on this thread. We’re just not sure what people want and kind of doing our own thing in hopes everything works out for us.
Well I'm from old school of 3.0 and 3.5 and what I find in Pathfinder is that there are not to much prestige classes for arcane spellcaster, mostly all the prestige classes I found are for organizations or must have a god to alignment to enter.
Additional my group are fan or development of 1 pc for all AP (we are playing for the last 6 year using the epic manual of 3.5 whit some Homebrew modifications to adapt in game) so I really want to have some manual that adapt to Pathfinder game.
|
Well I'm from old school of 3.0 and 3.5 and what I find in Pathfinder is that there are not to much prestige classes for arcane spellcaster, mostly all the prestige classes I found are for organizations or must have a god to alignment to enter.
Additional my group are fan or development of 1 pc for all AP (we are playing for the last 6 year using the epic manual of 3.5 whit some Homebrew modifications to adapt in game) so I really want to have some manual that adapt to Pathfinder game.
I too have old school 3.x and miss certain aspects of the system. I really want to see the blackguard come back beyond what could be considered an anti-paladin archetype.
The problem with PrC is that so many people want archetypes and are used to 5e's subclass system. I always like PrC that mixed two classes together.
I'm a little confused on your second paragraph. Are you saying you're looking for something akin to the Epic Level Handbook and something beyond Mythic (as that's what you're supposed to use currently? That does actually exist.
There's a fan made version thanks to the Wayback Machine. It's the most up-to-date version before the site fell.
There's a couple of official 3pp books that came out about 7-8 years ago, but it seems the company isn't around any more. And be damned if I could find the two books I own for that on my own hard drive to even tell you the name of the company that did it. From what I recall, the free version might be the better route.
I really hate PF2e and prefer more PF1e material and I'm not having much luck finding someone who is carrying the torch so I can give them my support.
Legendary Games attempts a rather big addition currently, in the spirit of PF1: Corefinder
Beside that, a LOT of material exists already. Check out d20PFSRD and its many "3rd Party" links to the left. Here you can preview 3pp content and figure out what you like.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'm from old school of 3.0 and 3.5 and what I find in Pathfinder is that there are not to much prestige classes for arcane spellcaster, mostly all the prestige classes I found are for organizations or must have a god to alignment to enter.I've recently been doing searches for companies still writing generic Pathfinder 1e material. I found this on the search. I really hate PF2e and prefer more PF1e material and I'm not having much luck finding someone who is carrying the torch so I can give them my support. If people can offer suggestions, let me know.
Thank you.
What kind of products are you looking for? More races? More classes and archetypes? Bloodlines for sorcerers and bloodragers? Mythic? Adventures from level 1-20? Backgrounds? Feats? Monsters?
We’re definitely keeping an eye on this thread. We’re just not sure what people want and kind of doing our own thing in hopes everything works out for us.
I am saying this not to argue, but just provide some information/background: Pathfinder, by design and by vocal fan demand at the time (I remember because I was one of those vocal fans), designed with a very different philosophy toward prestige classes than what had become of prestige classes in 3.x. When core 3.x came out, the intent of prestige classes were intended to to be reflective of a very specific form of optional specialization and/or following a specific path, such as joining an organization. But the way classes were designed, over time, prestige classes became, rather than optional, effectively necessary to get a lot of power and/or character concepts fleshed out the way a player wanted. And especially, there was often little incentive to play a single classed character because their power became wan at high levels--it was almost always the case that someone with a single base class at level 20 was weaker than someone multiclassed into a prestige class (one can agree or disagree upon whether this was intentional). Players demanded more and more prestige classes in 3.x to get more and more ways to specialize and empower their characters, such that they ended up becoming a massive way of playing for that edition. While prestige classes offered a lot of options, one of the dissatisfactions many (not all) players had with 3.x was the sheer number of and imbalance provided by the system--i.e., there were too many prestige classes and a lot of them were insanely broken (either too weak or gamebreakingly too powerful).
Pathfinder kept prestige classes out of a desire to retain backwards compatibility but wanted to move more modularity, flexibility, and class power into the base classes themselves. They accomplished this by introducing more far capabilities into the base classes (compare the core base Pathfinder classes into the core base 3.0 classes), which included 20th level capstones to reward sticking to a single class, as well as, over time, introducing archetypes for additional specialization options. For hybridizing classes, they preferred introducing new hybrid classes rather than new hybrid prestige classes, particularly in the Advanced Class Guide (although YMMV about how well they achieved this; as an aside personally I don't like most of the ACG classes outside of Slayer and Brawler).
Pathfinder wanted to go back to the idea of prestige classes being rare and only necessary for very, very specific specializations and/or reflective of attaining membership in a particular organization. Indeed, that's why there's so many religious ones, because they are designed for, among other things, religious orders. Prestige classes were also retooled in how they were built and even in how things like BAB progressed and the like to ensure they were not overpowerful. There aren't many for arcane classes because quite frankly an arcane class can probably do better with the right archetype and staying single class, and there are fewer arcane orders in Golarion.
Does that mean there isn't a niche to fill? Of course not. I expect there's still loads of content one could develop for PF1 if someone is willing to, including creating more prestige classes. But again, I say this to be informational and call out the fact that prestige classes are not intended, at all, to function the way they do in 3.x, and moreover, don't. I say this in part to point out that that a 3.x fan may be disappointed by the way prestige classes perform---and because of some fundamental design changes, having more of them may not improve this.
Switching to Pathfinder generally may work better if a player is willing to embrace a slightly different way to building characters for power and effectiveness, as well as for specialization. (If that player doesn't want to do that, I hold no judgement toward them--it's a preferential thing.) Nonetheless, more options can be good and third party designers may come up with something really cool here.
TL;DR: prestige classes perform a fundamentally different role in Pathfinder than in 3.x, so taking a 3.x mentality into Pathfinder's use of prestige classes could be disappointing--but not necessarily.
|
|
Well I'm from old school of 3.0 and 3.5 and what I find in Pathfinder is that there are not to much prestige classes for arcane spellcaster, mostly all the prestige classes I found are for organizations or must have a god to alignment to enter.I am saying this not to argue, but just provide some information/background: Pathfinder, by design and by vocal fan demand at the time (I remember because I was one of those vocal fans), designed with a very different philosophy toward prestige classes than what had become of prestige classes in 3.x. When core 3.x came out, the intent of prestige classes were intended to to be reflective of a very specific form of optional specialization and/or following a specific path, such as joining an organization. But the way classes were designed, over time, prestige classes became, rather than optional, effectively necessary to get a lot of power and/or character concepts fleshed out the way a player wanted. And especially, there was often little incentive to play a single classed character because their power became wan at high levels--it was almost always the case that someone with a single base class at level 20 was weaker than someone multiclassed into a prestige class (one can agree or disagree upon whether...
@Zephyr—You can bypass the organization thing by using the D20PFSRD versions. Instead of naming a specific group, it’ll say things like “join an undead cult” or “must worship a good/evil god”.
@DeathQuaker—That was very long with little substance. Zephyr was referring more to the fact that some Paizo PrC requires you to join specific factions, which, if your game world isn’t in Golarion, likely won’t exist. Also, Paizo kept PrCs because they didn’t know what they wanted to do when they first dropped the Core book. If they had, PrCs wouldn’t have existed in this version, and every class would have had a proper capstone (instead of the majority), which would be fixed with their Chronicles of Legends book. They’re all about the archetypes. Some archetypes even replaced the need for many of the Core PrC. But the real reason PrC exist in the first place is to help with multiclassing. Back in 3.x, if you multiclassed with a race that wasn’t human or half-elf, you were almost always penalized with the loss of XP. PrCs allowed you to mix classes or specialize in certain magics, and not have that issue. Now you could be that sorcerer/monk, the wizard/sorcerer, and the fighter/arcane caster. Sure, yes, sometimes it was a power balance issue, but that was mostly for clerics and sorcerers because they got nothing after 1st level. Or my personal favourite, a bard that could access 9th level spells. I personally would have loved to have seen more for clerics because their class was still robbed of anything at 20th.
PrCs are a little different in PF1e because archetypes all but replace them entirely, and customers still wanted them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@DeathQuaker—That was very long with little substance.
Unnecessarily snide comments like this remind me why I don't bother posting in the gaming forums very often. Your post could have stood fine as additional information or another point of view without it--and would be more likely to be taken seriously by me and others reading the thread if you managed to avoid getting needlessly personal. Folks are always welcome to ignore my friendly but often nonsensical rambling if they wish, but commenting on people's "post quality" just discourages other people from posting and prevents productive conversations about this game from happening. I recognize the irony that I am doing the same thing, to some extent, but sometimes other people's BS needs to be called out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My company, Jon Brazer Enterprises, is definitely still supporting PF 1e. Currently, we are working on a series that when bundled together will effectively be an NPC Codex 2. The Book of Beasts: Character Codex, as we are calling it, gives players 20 new NPCs per class. So far, we've completed the Magus Codex, and the Warpriest Codex. Witch and Slayer are in the works. We have other plans beyond this series but this is where we are at right now.
Didn't want to start my own thread, as it doesn't seem quite necessary, but would love if everyone here could fill it out. Wanting to see if there's any desire/want for pre-written adventures, especially for Pathfinder 1e.
Have a questionnaire waiting over here on Google forms. Your participation is very much appreciated.
The thought process with some publishers is that no one wants them, so they're not being made. If there's no one wanting them, that's okay. At least we'll know. Once I get enough responses for a "yes", I can discuss further what the premise would be. That would be its own thread so as to not derail this one.
Thank you in advance.
I love Pathfinder 1E, but an adventure would have to be very special at this point for me to be interested in buying. My shelf (and virtual shelf) is full of Pathfinder 1E adventures - many I will never have time to get to playing.
I love Pathfinder 1E, but an adventure would have to be very special at this point for me to be interested in buying. My shelf (and virtual shelf) is full of Pathfinder 1E adventures - many I will never have time to get to playing.
That’s fair. I’m not all that different myself. Definitely trying to gauge what would and wouldn’t be worth everyone’s time.
Is there another product you’d prefer seeing?
I highly recommend Midgard.
I would also recommend Midgard. I’ve used many of the monster books to influence my games.
How is it in terms of nuanced portrayals of traditionally "monster" races? I'd really like to move away from settings that treat whole types of creatures as "monsters".I highly recommend Midgard.I would also recommend Midgard. I’ve used many of the monster books to influence my games.
There's an empire of ghouls and a duchy of vampires, and while they're mostly evil it's definitely not a faceless, uniform evil. Orcs are mostly unknown although tend to attack settlements where they surface. But mostly conflict is political rather than good vs. evil. Dark fantasy/fairy tale, but not grimdark.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You definitely should check out our recent releases, including Legendary Bards and Legendary Wizards, as Legendary Games has now put out twenty-four class expansion and revision books for PFRPG, with a bunch more still in production!
Dark fantasy/fairy tale, but not grimdark.Unfortunately, "dark" is one of my red flags. Sorry, not interested.
Hmm, I would not describe Midgard as “dark” - I would describe it as “epic”. It plays very much like what you’d expect from a typical D&D setting, but it’s very steeped in magic and mythology. A little bit of Norse influence, but also clockwork golems and werelions and lots of other interesting bits and pieces. I also highly recommend it.
Firstly, I want to thank those who took the time to participate in the adventure questionnaire I posted earlier.
Have a questionnaire waiting over here on Google forms. Your participation is very much appreciated.
Secondly, out of these options, which would you most prefer to see another book of?
1) Bestiary2) Book containing new races
3) Base class, archetype, and prestige class book
4) Mix of 2 and 3
It would depend on what the individual races and classes are.
That's fair. Publisher is debating on what book would best to put out given the current economy so I said I'd go ask. We've got a few individual race books that are about 1/3 completed, a few classes (including a revised ranger) and PrC ideas, as well as some monsters from older edition 3PP books that we'd like to see converted (plus a bunch of original beastie ideas).
Secondly, out of these options, which would you most prefer to see another book of?
1) Bestiary
2) Book containing new races
3) Base class, archetype, and prestige class book
4) Mix of 2 and 3
I'd prefer 3), but the class(es) would really have to hit the right spot to be interesting.
When it comes to monsters, IMO more depth to existing monsters is more interesting than adding even more of them. Some of my favourite Paizo books are Monster Codex, Classic Monsters Revisited and Demons Revisited.
Same goes for races. We have like 60 races from Paizo alone - there are few things not covered yet. I prefer focused books like Gnomes of Golarion.
Secondly, out of these options, which would you most prefer to see another book of?
1) Bestiary
2) Book containing new races
3) Base class, archetype, and prestige class book
4) Mix of 2 and 3I'd prefer 3), but the class(es) would really have to hit the right spot to be interesting.
When it comes to monsters, IMO more depth to existing monsters is more interesting than adding even more of them. Some of my favourite Paizo books are Monster Codex, Classic Monsters Revisited and Demons Revisited.
Same goes for races. We have like 60 races from Paizo alone - there are few things not covered yet. I prefer focused books like Gnomes of Golarion.
#3 Would definitely be a mix, not unlike a core book, and I'm not entirely sure what classes would be in there. I know two would hybrids.
The Revisited books have definitely been an interesting read. The only problem I can see with making monster (and eve race) focused books would be that for it to really work, it'd need to be written in a Campaign Setting style, which might not mesh well with a GM's home world. Something to definitely consider and bring forward though. It shall be noted.
Hrm, Monster Codex managed to completely (?) avoid ties to Golarion. Still, the book becomes less useful for GMs who already reinterpreted the given monsters or don't want them in their campaign world.
When it comes to focused books, my gut feeling is that Paizo moved away from 1-race player companions to multiple-race ones. Likely because there is only so much interest for a single given race, no matter how good the book is.
Hrm, Monster Codex managed to completely (?) avoid ties to Golarion. Still, the book becomes less useful for GMs who already reinterpreted the given monsters or don't want them in their campaign world.
Yes, for the most part the Monster Codex was self contained. I was referring more to the Revisited and (races) of Golarion books.
Definitely doable. Just be a matter of which monsters that’d get that treatment.
And it definitely sucks, but I was really hoping Dreamscarred Press wouldn’t suddenly disappear. I was liking their deep dive into a version of Savage Species. A friend was the lead writer for it too. Would have been nice to see it continue.
Hmm, I would not describe Midgard as “dark” ...It's in the ad copy:
"Midgard is lost in an age of war: of dark wilderness, and lost empires sunk beneath the waves. Only magic and the warmth of hope keeps lights aglow when dread things prowl, and priestly wardings tremble and bend before the fury of demonic rage. In this dark time, new heroes must arise to claim the crowns of Midgard, and restore the jewels to her scattered thrones..."
In contrast their Southlands sounds da-bomb:
"Welcome to the Southlands: a land of mystery and adventure, where riches and dangers await heroes who adventure across the wild expanse of Midgard’s largest continent. Here, the deserts abound with forgotten tombs, swift sand skiffs, and nomadic spirit talkers. The tall grass of the savannahs hides lost cities and fierce warriors, and the dense jungles swarm with living vines that choke the life from careless visitors. Those brave enough to set forth into the Southlands’ burning sands, fierce jungles, wild coasts, and ancient cities can find riches beyond imagining—and perhaps even a spark of divinity itself. For most, though, only death awaits.Demonic cults, lizardfolk with enormous plans, villains behind magical portals and buried in the dust of ages: what could be finer? Seize the reins of adventure, and seek glory in the Southlands!"
Both books are written in similar style (and a lot of same folk wrote them), I called it dark because they call it like that themselves but basically only "dark" thing when you read the book is the amount of potential conflict that is described in political situation. A bit darker are land of vampires with typical goth undertones and somewhat lovecraftian Wasted West. Shadow fey remind of Unseelie court from myths/other settings. Southlands are lighter in tone because they represent exploration part of the setting, and its nations are not that interconnected like in Midlands of Midgard (which are equivalent of Europe). I mean you don't have to like it, but Midgard CS and the Southlands are for me two best campaign setting books written. Maybe not that original but full of mystery and potential. I like them much better than Golarion CS books. I even like them so much I buy 5e adventures (Warlock Lairs which tend to run to Grimm-like in their darkest and pretty whimsical in some parts), and I wouldn't touch 5e with a stick.
A little thread necromancy (maybe not too much) but I would be interested in anyone who could convince Privateer Press to let them do a conversion for Iron Kingsdoms. Their Monsternomicon had interesting monsters along with great lore for each of them. As far as bestiaries and new races, I feel they're completely unnecessary for my needs. Legendary Games covers any class needs I have along with Drop Dead Studios. I'm enjoying what's happening with Lost Spheres Publishing the most right now because it's not just a bestiary/new class/new race book. Best of luck to any who endeavor in this market and I hope someone creates something wonderful.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
We've got a metric ton of new updates for our Corefinder Project revising, streamlining, and updating PF1. Check them out and consider becoming a Patron to support the project!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little thread necromancy (maybe not too much)...
Any amount of Thread Necromancy requires no apology.