Things You are Disappointed We Never Got From PF1 (And as such hope to see in PF2)


Pathfinder Playtest

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."
If you feel intimidated by game options just play the Dungeon! board game. "Bloat" is a nonsense pejorative that gamers like to throw around.

Let's use a pejorative that is accurate then.

Superfluous.

When there are feats for imitating animal noises, that is a superfluous feat. When there are feats that enable and govern downtime activities or are pertinent solely to running a kingdom, those are superfluous feats. (Thankfully this should be addressed in Nouveau Pathfinder.)

"Feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's [ancestry, background] and class." bracketing done to indicate what should be the pertinent specifics for Nouveau Pathfinder.

Making animal noises is not outside the scope of any reasonable interpretation of using Knowledge (nature) or Survival. Running a business falls under the purview of the Profession skill. Getting better at governing one's kingdom/nation is the purview of a combination of the regular skills and - in Nouveau Pathfinder - learning via downtime.

We have feats for these exact things in Pathfinder, among a great many other superfluous feats.

My hope is that there will be no superfluous material in Nouveau Pathfinder.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the 3pp materials are written and/or developed by some of the same people that work at or freelance for Paizo. Both Mark and I started in the 3pp market, and I actually hadn't written for Paizo at all before I started working for them and was hired based pretty much solely on my 3pp content (and of course whatever personal qualities I have that Paizo saw as valuable during my interview, but I wouldn't have gotten that interview in the first place if not for my 3pp work).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
I wouldn't dismiss 3rd party products.

I've been very resistant to using 3rd party products. It's not that I ever thought they were all unbalanced or untested, I've certainly seen some good work out there, but because I want to avoid the precedent of opening up the table to 3rd party.

If I allow one 3rd party source, that means I have to give fair consideration to any other sources my group brings to me.

It's probably impossible from legal and budget concerns, but it would be really helpful if Paizo had a rubber stamp for 3rd party books. "Hey, we looked over this book and it shouldn't violate assumptions for baseline play".

I also don't use them much because I like using HeroLab and access to 3rd party stuff is limited, and also has unknown impacts on HeroLab calculations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I wanted to see a mundane "leader" type class (like the 4e Martial) and--perhaps more specifically--a "lazy lord" style of class that could impel their allies to take extra actions and/or gave out bonuses in general (ala the Noble class in Star Wars Saga Edition or certain 4e Martial builds). You could do some of this "lazy lord" stuff with certain bard spells and haste, but I have always thought that playing with action economy is sufficiently fertile soil that a whole class could go there. I also generally like playing "squad leader" styles of characters and I don't know if any of the archetypes that tried to do this sort of thing (Like the "sensei" archetype) ever really did the job I wanted. I'd love to see a "commander" in PF 2E. It seems like Ranger may get some tech to support this kind of build in 2E but I'd really like to get that kind of build going...

It sounds to me like you'd enjoy playing an Envoy in Starfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I really want to see is a design space for big clumsy monsters. In PF1, because of the way that strength applies to both to-hitand damage, it seems impossible to create a monster that doesn't hit very often, but if it does, hits really hard.

By the same logic I want to see something that can grapple players, but whose grapples can be escaped/broken by most reasonably strong and/or agile characters, so that grappling becomes a mechanic for slowing characters down rather than stopping them outright.

Linking to hit /CMB to Dex and damage/CMD to Strength would be my preferred mechanic.

Paizo Employee

First World Bard wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I wanted to see a mundane "leader" type class (like the 4e Martial) and--perhaps more specifically--a "lazy lord" style of class that could impel their allies to take extra actions and/or gave out bonuses in general (ala the Noble class in Star Wars Saga Edition or certain 4e Martial builds). You could do some of this "lazy lord" stuff with certain bard spells and haste, but I have always thought that playing with action economy is sufficiently fertile soil that a whole class could go there. I also generally like playing "squad leader" styles of characters and I don't know if any of the archetypes that tried to do this sort of thing (Like the "sensei" archetype) ever really did the job I wanted. I'd love to see a "commander" in PF 2E. It seems like Ranger may get some tech to support this kind of build in 2E but I'd really like to get that kind of build going...
It sounds to me like you'd enjoy playing an Envoy in Starfinder.

[Paizo hat off]

There's also the Commander from Drop Dead Studio's Spheres of Might if you don't want to wait for the new edition of Pathfinder to introduce something along those lines. It's even available on DDS's wiki. It's not a Paizo book, but it is an Ennie nominee and one of the designers (this guy) is a Paizo developer, so it's got that going for it if those are things that matter to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
As I said recently, I wanted a spontaneous casting druid from day 1 and never got one. So my hope is that we can get at least one spontaneous casting class dedicated to each of the 4 spell lists (distinct from a "pick one of these four" spontaneous caster like the sorcerer.)
I will say this: maybe you can approximate that by multiclassing a primal Sorcerer and Druid? Is casting from charisma a problem in itself by any chance?

I just think it's better to do a whole other class devoted to primal casting. Sorcerer gets all 4 lists because of its theme ("Special Blood") and I don't want to have to buy into that notion (and also be extremely squishy) in order to cast spontaneously from a given list.

Like there's no reason to conserve classes- there's going to be a lot of them in a few years no matter what. So if we can establish clear thematic or mechanical niches, fill them.

I understand the desire, but all I can think when I see this is: "BLOAT."
If you feel intimidated by game options just play the Dungeon! board game. "Bloat" is a nonsense pejorative that gamers like to throw around.

Hmm. That was kind of rude. And also wrong, in my opinion.

No, I don't feel intimidated - at all - by the options. Worn out, maybe. And discouraged, because I prefer Pathfinder to D&D, but a group of friends I DM for play 5E because they were overwhelmed with Pathfinder. The concern regarding Bloat does not spring from my own feelings from it, but rather from a desire to involve new people in this pastime.

I would willingly sacrifice some of my own options and even enjoyment (to an extent) if it meant involving more and more new people in the awesome world of TTRPGs. It's a wonderful thing, and I'm all for more people getting involved who haven't experienced it before.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I wouldn't dismiss 3rd party products.

I've been very resistant to using 3rd party products. It's not that I ever thought they were all unbalanced or untested, I've certainly seen some good work out there, but because I want to avoid the precedent of opening up the table to 3rd party.

If I allow one 3rd party source, that means I have to give fair consideration to any other sources my group brings to me.

It's probably impossible from legal and budget concerns, but it would be really helpful if Paizo had a rubber stamp for 3rd party books. "Hey, we looked over this book and it shouldn't violate assumptions for baseline play".

I also don't use them much because I like using HeroLab and access to 3rd party stuff is limited, and also has unknown impacts on HeroLab calculations.

This is a really solid reason not to use them, to be honest. It's kind of the best reason, simply because it's easier to have a single simple rule. It's fair to say that the best way to get some really amazing benefit from 3pp does require a fair amount of discretion to figure out which ones will best match your game.

There are a host of reasons why what you suggest isn't feasible for Paizo to do. I would recommend Endzeitgeist's reviews. Based on my knowledge of my own (high powered but not as much as some 3pp) PF1 games and a baseline game, he's very in line with my own games. So if Endzeitgeist says it is too powerful or an exploit, stay away unless you want very high power, he's pretty much always right. If he has any power concerns at all, even if the verdict is eventually a very high review, give it a shot if you are high powered, but you should probably avoid if you are baseline. If he doesn't have any concerns or flags and gave it a high rating, you are likely to be safe and should definitely check it out if it seems your group's style (he will pretty much always catch things that are balance problems for a high powered game and pretty much never has a false positive on those flags either, and often but not always flags the problems for a baseline game). He reviews large swathes of 3pp stuff and is very thorough and good at noticing things. I heard from another contributor that he once did a review of a hundreds-of-pages long book where he pulled out a small number of options from disparate sections across the whole product to comment on the power level that were exactly all of the things that one contributor wrote, no more, no less, which is extremely impressive analysis.

So if you would be willing to dip into 3pp if you had a trusted voice looking at them for you first, I can heartily recommend Endzeitgeist as that voice. And while his review of Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler gave me the feels as a designer, this recommendation is based on his track record, not his reviews of my stuff.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I didn't know about Endzeitgeist, but it looks like a good resource. Thanks for the recommendation!


If you limit yourself to one reviewer, EZG is the 3rd-party publisher reviewer to "listen to".

I usually see if there are any similar concerns raised by other reviewers. EZG has long established the standard bar as regards 3pp products.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
necromental wrote:
I just want to say that a lot of things people wish in this thread have been made by 3pps for PF1. I know it's not an option for a lot of people, but it's a thing to keep in mind.
In my opinion, the quality and balance of those 3PP are really not where they needed to be. For one thing, they just don’t have the same capacity to playtest their products to the same extent and you end up with rules hat are out of balance or have a lot of unclear interactions. I mean, I could also just homebrew it all myself (and Indeed I have homebrewed some of my listed concepts) but that does not mean I don’t want Paizo’s version.
I wouldn't dismiss 3rd party products. Some of them actually have pretty lengthy playtests, in a few cases longer than Paizo's (if not with as many different people) because they can wait any amount of time to publish. 3rd party products are really great because you can find ones that have a philosophy that is perfect for your game (chances are if you find just the right one, it might fit better than even Paizo stuff for your group), but that can be a challenge if you find ones that are designed around a different philosophy (for instance, there are a reasonable number that are designed for games much deadlier than the baseline game and that work well for those games but not for a baseline game, I think in part because many of the players deep enough into the game to look for 3pp products are more likely to be playing such games). The playtests they run may not help you if you are in the wrong demographic, say for instance they started with something that would be right for your game but then the playtesters were mostly harder-than-baseline high-power demographic and asked for it to become more powerful (for instance, in one such playtest where I participated as a fan when I was just a freelance 3pp designer, I posted one of my PCs I played in an AP, a pouncing beast totem superstitious human barbarian with the human FCB, max...

That is all very fair, but that does mean more work for me and/or me betting money on a product that is liable to disappoint me. I think there is something to be said for having games with the cohesive styles and standard that a central publishing entity has; neither Paizo nor any given 3PP is going to be perfect in its editorial capacity, but consistent gatekeepers will tend towards a more consistent game than inconsistent gatekeepers will. For that reason, I tend to prefer buying whole new games to 3PP in general. That way, I am playing a game with a more centralized "authorial voice", I guess. To get a little more lib. arts major on you cool cats, I feel like a lot of 3PP kind of lose the thread of what ideas and design motiffs are central to the design of Pathfinder and--as such--I find them to be less interesting aesthetically. In many ways, I feel like some 3PP would be making better works of art if they just built a whole game from scratch that better embodied the idiosyncrasies of their vision; Legend of the 5 Rings is a massive wall of complexity in many ways but I think every edition of that game has more aesthetic merit than Oriental Adventures both because the rules were made specifically to envoke the world of a specific setting and because the mechanics create unique adventures and play paradigms that are separate from the goals already achieved by WotC.

On a more practical note, I have bought a few 3PP materials from Drivethru RPG and have liked them well enough (Spheres of Power for instance), but I find trouble finding tables where such things are legal other than ones that I run myself.

First World Bard wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I wanted to see a mundane "leader" type class (like the 4e Martial) and--perhaps more specifically--a "lazy lord" style of class that could impel their allies to take extra actions and/or gave out bonuses in general (ala the Noble class in Star Wars Saga Edition or certain 4e Martial builds). You could do some of this "lazy lord" stuff with certain bard spells and haste, but I have always thought that playing with action economy is sufficiently fertile soil that a whole class could go there. I also generally like playing "squad leader" styles of characters and I don't know if any of the archetypes that tried to do this sort of thing (Like the "sensei" archetype) ever really did the job I wanted. I'd love to see a "commander" in PF 2E. It seems like Ranger may get some tech to support this kind of build in 2E but I'd really like to get that kind of build going...
It sounds to me like you'd enjoy playing an Envoy in Starfinder.

I do enjoy the envoy is Starfinder, actually. Really, I would be surprised if the envoy was not specifically a response to the Star Wars Saga Edition's Noble in some ways. I think its resource management is a little restrictive, and it maybe has a bit too much variation in the efficacy of its powers, but it is probably my favorite Starfinder class. I actually like Starfinder quite a bit, but I have only ever run it.

Scarab Sages

I'll pay attention to 3pp when I can use it in PFS.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
I'll pay attention to 3pp when I can use it in PFS.

*chuckling* That is a fair statement. :)


Dragonborn3 wrote:

In my opinion a lot of 3rd party material is better balanced than Paizo's works. Of course it doesn't help that Paizo needlessly nerfed things people were using more often than not, so....

Or that Paizo made terrible archetypes for people wanting dragons, but the Dragonrider 3rd party class is amazing and far more balanced than it looks.

Or Shifter. Full stop.

Tbh, Vigilante was the last thing in PF1 that I paid really close attention to. I said before that I fell off of after playing Occult Adventures for a little while but I did pay close attention to the Vigilante playtest before buying that associated hardcover and never using it. Either way, I don't know a ton about the Shifter. I looked at it a bit the pfsrd and thought that it was odd that the class never got an attack bonus past BAB while most "full martials" do. I didn't think the class got anything so amazing that they couldn't do with a bit more accuracy. If memory serves, the Brawler also never got additional accuracy past BAB but I feel like that class ended up making up for it in raw damage through its progressing damage die and various fighting styles. I guess the Shifter can turn into a bird or whatever, though. That is some amount of utility.

I have never looked at the Dragonrider class, but I promise you that for every "good" 3PP class there is another that is as bad or worse than the Shifter.

Angel Hunter D wrote:
I'll pay attention to 3pp when I can use it in PFS.

Yeah, I don't know about all that. Maybe Paizo or Pathfinder society could introduce a "3PP Seal of Approval" or some such thing? I don't see that happening, though. That would be a lot of editorial work and I could see patrons of PS feeling that such content ruins the "authenticity" of their hot Golarion adventures.

Mark Seifter wrote:


There are a host of reasons why what you suggest isn't feasible for Paizo to do. I would recommend Endzeitgeist's reviews.

I'll maybe take that into advisement as well.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I'll pay attention to 3pp when I can use it in PFS.

Campaign mode is a wonderful thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For all the folks talking about "commander" characters, I did try to get one into the game in the form of the sister-in-arms cavalier. It's just an archetype, though, so it can't do that much.

We know that Gray Maiden character options will be a part of PF2. Maybe we'll see a more thorough approach to the sister-in-arms when the new system builds up some steam. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have liked to have had more Mythic support than I got in PF1; I enjoy the type of campaign where your party actually slays the demon lord and explicitly becomes a demigod in the planes as a finisher, for instance.

Whether that style of campaign would require the addition of tiers or levels of power beyond 20th in PF2, or whether this edition will be designed such that "slaying the demon lord" play will be within the capability of a party of 20th level characters, thereby obviating the need for mythic, would of course be a design decision. I would prefer the latter, honestly.

Certainly, PF1 was explicitly designed such that a party of 20th levels couldn't kill a demon lord or an archdevil, and that always seemed strange to me.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd have really liked to see word-casting expanded upon, instead of being completely forgotten after Ultimate Magic.


Raisse wrote:
I'd have really liked to see word-casting expanded upon, instead of being completely forgotten after Ultimate Magic.

It wasn't completely forgotten. After all, all those Reincarnated Druid builds took "Experimental Spellcaster" so they can cast Restoration without material components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I miss "short" (less-than-ten-level) prestige classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Things I want we never got in PF1:

Options for bards without spellcasting.

...

Otherwise, I got mechanics for every bloody thing I felt like running...


you know small stamp meaning this 3rd party content approved by paizo would be nice hell i put my hat on the group deciding what 3rd party contend can be approved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I hope for PF2 is golarion beyond the inner sea

vudra and the rest of castoran, south garund and arcadia ... so much stuff and we barely seens anything of it, we havent even seen much of the dragon empires besides 1 book and a part of an adventure path (if I recall correctly)

(I still hope to find out wtf the deal with the vishkanya is among other things... We know they exist but neither exactly where nor do we know anything about their history, culture, etc)


Castilliano wrote:

Second the Factotum.

Was looking forward to playing that, but didn't before the big shift.
As flexible as PF2 is, this still might need a whole new class.

Have always wanted a polymorph warrior.
Yes, there's the shifter or the various wild shape possibilities, but I mean something more like the Summoner's Eidolon, where the PC sculpts a DIY monster to morph into, possibly choosing on the fly.
There was a prestige class in 3.x, again toward the end, that did this using polymorph spells and bonuses gained while polymorphed.
With the new system, I could see an archetype or prestige class open up this possibility, gaining access to stronger forms, using the original class mainly as a chassis. A Druid with a variant version of Wild Shape might best suit the need.

Reactive Shifter from Distant Realms (newish book) can polymorph with custom abilities on the fly!


Raisse wrote:
I'd have really liked to see word-casting expanded upon, instead of being completely forgotten after Ultimate Magic.

I actually completely forgot that those rules existed. I played a sorceror with word-casting once and I thought it was fun but I recall feeling underpowered. I mostly GM though, and my players never used the option and I don't recall that system ever appearing on any monster or NPCs that were ever published.

I should maybe reread that stuff.

Shadow Lodge

There is a wonderful guide for it that really helped when played a Word Sorcerer. There's another for Oracles too.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
There is a wonderful guide for it that really helped when played a Word Sorcerer. There's another for Oracles too.

I actually just got finished looking through it again. Accelerate seems good since it essentially gives your fight boys pounce. I can also see a magus liking all the stuff you can do with spell strike instead of just “empowered maximized shocking grasp”.

It is hard to compete with a decade of spell list expansion though.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes it's more fun just needing a single book. I know I enjoyed making different spells on the fly. In pbp I even put the words through google translate for Latin so the verbal components can be called out. It's a bit Harry Potter, but it's a neat touch in my opinion.


Easier Construct rules.

Why yes I know they are there to stop people from just crafting an army(Being Evil and using Raise dead is far easier, and Summoning even easier/less prone to cause partying infighting), but really I shouldn't have to cross reference a couple books/pdfs/sites for crafting/upgrading the thing.

I just want to have 1 Golem or Construct buddy that I upgrade over the course of the game. And I want to do that without going Summoner and just flavoring/RPing my Eidolon as one


3rd party will surprise you sometimes. Good stuff can be found.


POISON
I'd like contact poison to be more usable, at least to those who were meant to use it (like rogues, assassins, or any wilderness class who could cheaply harvest the plants or animal venom). In all editions of the game I've played, poison has been so expensive that it's not feasible for a PC to use consistently (within the rules, of course campaign GMs can make any rule they like). And for good reason, you don't want every single character coating their weapons every single fight with poison, that would be annoying. But if rogues (or someone who could harvest) had a limited use of poison everyday... that would be cool.

Ingested poison has only been used for plot hooks, but the mechanics of the poison, even ingested poison, have been so weak, even a "deadly" ingested poison couldn't kill a commoner, and has no chance of killing an adventurer. Even if the poison were slow (1 check per hour/6 hours/24 hours) but the DC was higher, it would be better.

Poison is very common in fantasy but not very common in Pathfinder, I'd like to see the mechanics improved so that we see it more often and when we see it, it can be a big deal.


I thought alchemists could make poisons at cost (1/10th price per dose), make them quickly and then make them all kinds of configurations and whatnot in Pathfinder.

Huh. ;)


Alchemists are not rogues.

A lot of the poisons are DC 12-15 fort saves, need 1 save to stop, and cost 600-1000g. I can't see an alchemist bother to spend 100 gold on something that won't work and won't work on a target that is worthwhile.

I'd almost want to see it as a class feature, like bombs, that is free to use a very limited number of times per day.

I see that Ultimate Wilderness added a lot of rules to the game which I was unaware, which is cool.


Oh yeah. I also wanted better poison crafting rules and maybe a class or archetype series that made poisons that ignored some immunities. I actually started on a “spider” class that got some sneak attack, 4 levels of alchemist spellcasting, and made magical poisons but never got it to a point where I wanted to put it on the internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the main problem with poison is that it's asymmetrical. Poisons that affect PCs tend to be way more damaging than using them on NPCs, even if the effects are the same, and even if the NPC target wasn't immune. With the new approach to conditions, maybe this will be lessened, but if Poisons' effects last beyond a single fight, then using them in combat will always benefit NPCs (since they tend to only last one fight, while PCs have to deal with the repercussions). Outside of combat it's a little more even, but only if PCs are proactive (and sufficiently skilled as to use them effectively. Nothing like failing a stealth check trying to surreptitiously poison the evil king after already passing a Bluff check and a Knowledge(nobility) check to even get that close).

But if they manage to figure out the kinks in poisoning, then I could see it as a nice Alchemist trick, and probably also a rogue trick, and maybe even a poisoner archetype.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jason S wrote:

Poison is very common in fantasy but not very common in Pathfinder, I'd like to see the mechanics improved so that we see it more often and when we see it, it can be a big deal.

In one of the "Paladins can use poison now?" threads, I pointed out that a reason people associate poison with dishonor was that in the real world, poison is both cheap and effective, and so was accessible to anyone. On Golarian, none of that is true.


Tholomyes wrote:

I think the main problem with poison is that it's asymmetrical. Poisons that affect PCs tend to be way more damaging than using them on NPCs, even if the effects are the same, and even if the NPC target wasn't immune. With the new approach to conditions, maybe this will be lessened, but if Poisons' effects last beyond a single fight, then using them in combat will always benefit NPCs (since they tend to only last one fight, while PCs have to deal with the repercussions). Outside of combat it's a little more even, but only if PCs are proactive (and sufficiently skilled as to use them effectively. Nothing like failing a stealth check trying to surreptitiously poison the evil king after already passing a Bluff check and a Knowledge(nobility) check to even get that close).

But if they manage to figure out the kinks in poisoning, then I could see it as a nice Alchemist trick, and probably also a rogue trick, and maybe even a poisoner archetype.

I definitely hope the poisons system ends up cool. If it's ironed out enough I hope one of my players plays an alchemist, so I can give out funky formulae as loot.

I already want to give some elven criminals a low level poison I'm dubbing "Hobbler's Oil" and it would be nice for the seedy underworld to have a ridiculous amount of dangerous stuff floating around.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

There are so many things I wanted to see in PF1 but looks like it will never happen. But there are too many things about PF2 that I don't like that I really don't care to make any wishes for the things I wanted in PF1.


I would have loved an official homunculus player race. Admittedly, I have a small obsession with the little lab-grown lovelies.
One of my favorite characters that I've had the privilege to play was a reskinned Wyrwood Promethean Alchemist in Carrion Crown. It was a tale of existentialism, family drama, and the sweet, sweet logistical management of a small alchemical singularity. Oh, that was fun. I'm glad my DM allowed me to play that small bit of homebrew over an exotic race.

Ehh, probably won't happen, but the thought is nice.


Brock Landers wrote:
1of1 wrote:
I would have loved an official homunculus player race. Admittedly, I have a small obsession with the little lab-grown lovelies.
That reminds me of the 2nd Ed AD&D Ravenloft adventure, The Created, where the character's minds are placed in little constructs, so the whole party are Pinocchios.

I'll have to look into that, it sounds quite fun. Ravenloft is exactly the place for something like that to happen.


Yeah, plot twists involving character agency are kind of finicky. They can be great as a surprise for certain types of players, but if they're not into that kind of thing it really takes them out the experience.

As with any group activity, communication is key. Ironically, that's easier said than done.

But thanks for pointing me to the module. I just picked it up and skimmed through it, and it's giving me some pretty interesting ideas for a game I'm throwing together. Hangovers from wizard college parties in post rebellion Kintargo just got a little more complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been considering running a story arc with construct bodies being used for their immunities. Blocking "any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless)" just seems like a good way to get through an area warded with the likes of Baleful Polymorph's slower but much worse brother.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that a "Promethian" kind of race would be cool (to reference the White Wolf game). Really, I have a soft spot for "construct" and otherwise "created" races in general (Warforged; Clockworks and Orcs from Shadow of the Demon Lord; androids; what-have-you). I don't know enough about Golarion as a setting to know how something like that fits in for them. Weren't rune giants a created race?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Weren't rune giants a created race?

They were, in a way. A magically induced crossbreed of two giant species. Which is kinda gross depending on how they did it, but then, no one ever accused the rune lords of having impeccable ethics.

The Wyrwood are a playable race that's not really prevalent in the inner sea. They were originally made in the old Azlanti empire, but after learning how to make more of their own kind, they ended up surviving the fall of the empire and established their own civilizations.
There are also a few straight up androids wandering around because Numeria is an ancient ayylmao crash site.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
I agree that a "Promethian" kind of race would be cool (to reference the White Wolf game). Really, I have a soft spot for "construct" and otherwise "created" races in general (Warforged; Clockworks and Orcs from Shadow of the Demon Lord; androids; what-have-you). I don't know enough about Golarion as a setting to know how something like that fits in for them. Weren't rune giants a created race?

Well we do have Androids from Numeria so I would assume most android are uncommon or rare but sighted to the north east section of the main map.

Which I could easily slide Warforged in as Magical/Arcane recreations of Androids or just inspired by the design.


1of1 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Weren't rune giants a created race?

They were, in a way. A magically induced crossbreed of two giant species. Which is kinda gross depending on how they did it, but then, no one ever accused the rune lords of having impeccable ethics.

The Wyrwood are a playable race that's not really prevalent in the inner sea. They were originally made in the old Azlanti empire, but after learning how to make more of their own kind, they ended up surviving the fall of the empire and established their own civilizations.
There are also a few straight up androids wandering around because Numeria is an ancient ayylmao crash site.

I was playing other games when the Numeria rules came out. It seems like a neat little adventure/corner of the setting.

Also, I don't think that I ever heard of the Wyrwood before now which is odd because D20pfsrd says that it is in the Advanced Race Guide which is a book that I do indeed own.


The wyrwood in the ARG were examples of the race builder being used. The book is also the first source for kasatha for the same reason.

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Things You are Disappointed We Never Got From PF1 (And as such hope to see in PF2) All Messageboards