Pathfinder 1st Edition Continuation Project


Product Discussion


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been playing Pathfinder since it came out, and I played 3.5 and 3.0 before that. I love the system and when I heard about Pathfinder and saw how it improved the game I loved, I couldn't get enough. I have bought almost every product and been a big supporter of the game and of Paizo.

Now we have 2nd edition on the horizon, but after looking at it, my group and myself aren't interested, as we aren't liking the changes and overall, it doesn't feel anything like 3.5, which is why we got into Pathfinder in the first place. We have a lot of game concepts and a lot of character ideas we still want to play out, and I find it a shame to have all this material for 1st edition and most people are going to disregard it and play 2nd ed. I wanna get more than my money's worth out of the books I've bought and the material I've created.

That being said, I know there are others in the community that also are sticking with 1st edition, and I'm wanting to get a group of people together who feel like compiling, creating, and playtesting new material for 1st edition even after 2nd edition hits the shelves. I know that most companies are going to jump on the 2nd edition train so it'll be up to the community to keep the game going with fresh new ideas. I'm also planning on converting new campaign setting material that comes out to 1st edition to expand on the Inner Sea setting.

I have worked with others in the community before, and I have compiled and created pdfs for new material that we have created. My group also has a ton of other material we want to compile into another book in the next year.

Please let me know if you are interested in being part of a group that is interested in continuing to create, convert, and balance new and old material for the game we all love to keep it alive. I would love to hear ideas and thoughts on this as well. I look forward to hearing from anyone interested (hopefully there's more than I'm expecting).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I've moved your thread to a more appropriate forum. If you look around in this forum, you'll find a few other threads discussing this concept.


I can see where your coming from, Fnipernackle, and I'm sticking with PF1 too, but I don't *want* any new content. There's just *so much* that I have left to explore in PF1 that I'm looking forward to not having to buy or create anything else for a very, very long time.

Do you really need to create new content at this point instead of exploring the thousands of pages of content that's already available?

Now that said, if you (and others) enjoy creating new content, then absolutely do so!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking for our group, our plan is that now that we'll have a stable, complete, finished version of the game, our focus is going to be on house rules.

We're planning on taking a massive run at classes, archetypes, and feats and doing a rebalance appropriate for our table and cutting out a lot of fat to make a really lean system for our future games.

Like DaveMage, above, I'm not particularly interested in new content, as for us, the existence of a "Definitive Version" of PF1E gives us the elbow room to make these adjustments without worry that our alterations will be affected by future content.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DaveMage wrote:

I can see where your coming from, Fnipernackle, and I'm sticking with PF1 too, but I don't *want* any new content. There's just *so much* that I have left to explore in PF1 that I'm looking forward to not having to buy or create anything else for a very, very long time.

Do you really need to create new content at this point instead of exploring the thousands of pages of content that's already available?

Now that said, if you (and others) enjoy creating new content, then absolutely do so!

I don't really NEED new content, but there are things we have made that we would like to compile in a completed form for future reference. We also want to "cut the fat" as Gulthor said above and fix some things in the official rules that we would like to see fix/expanded/improved, like the cleric for example. We just want to actually make an actual pdf for our changes and fixes for future reference. I have done pdf projects for community projects on the boards as well as my own in house tinkering. I just hope there will still be people interested in helping balance those out as well as people who would be interested in free pdfs that I compile so that my group isn't the only one benefiting.

Honestly, when I heard about 2nd edition, I was saddened. I still don't think we need a new edition, as a soft refinement like Unchained was fine. As I have looked at the second edition rules, I'm not impressed and it's not 3.x anymore; it's a new entity and I'm not looking for a new rpg. The 2nd edition community will not be getting my services in the future (not like anyone cared), but there are still things I want to make and I don't want it to be just for 5 other guys.

I'm going to miss this community, but I hope it sticks around for years to come.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I fully support your decision to try and continue 3.5/3.75. what kind of ideas have you had?


I'm going through the process of identifying the third party content that I think adds the most value to the system such as the various mythic supplements from Legendary Games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fnipernackle wrote:
DaveMage wrote:

I can see where your coming from, Fnipernackle, and I'm sticking with PF1 too, but I don't *want* any new content. There's just *so much* that I have left to explore in PF1 that I'm looking forward to not having to buy or create anything else for a very, very long time.

Do you really need to create new content at this point instead of exploring the thousands of pages of content that's already available?

Now that said, if you (and others) enjoy creating new content, then absolutely do so!

I don't really NEED new content, but there are things we have made that we would like to compile in a completed form for future reference. We also want to "cut the fat" as Gulthor said above and fix some things in the official rules that we would like to see fix/expanded/improved, like the cleric for example. We just want to actually make an actual pdf for our changes and fixes for future reference. I have done pdf projects for community projects on the boards as well as my own in house tinkering. I just hope there will still be people interested in helping balance those out as well as people who would be interested in free pdfs that I compile so that my group isn't the only one benefiting.

Honestly, when I heard about 2nd edition, I was saddened. I still don't think we need a new edition, as a soft refinement like Unchained was fine. As I have looked at the second edition rules, I'm not impressed and it's not 3.x anymore; it's a new entity and I'm not looking for a new rpg. The 2nd edition community will not be getting my services in the future (not like anyone cared), but there are still things I want to make and I don't want it to be just for 5 other guys.

I'm going to miss this community, but I hope it sticks around for years to come.

Ah, I get it now - sounds cool.

As for PF2, the 4E-like elements creeping in are a huge turn-off for me. I'll look at the playtest stuff (because *free*), but I love the 3.x engine (and PF1's improvements to it) and am not in a hurry to leave it.


DaveMage wrote:
Do you really need to create new content at this point instead of exploring the thousands of pages of content that's already available?

There are a few 3rd-party products I'm still hoping to get before their publishers change ship, mostly ones dealing with playing various monsters as PCs.

Really the only "new" content I need right now is better-designed/more-inspiring races, since I don't feel like Pathfinder fits my needs well in that area. For other parts of the system I'm good.

Liberty's Edge

Gulthor wrote:
Speaking for our group, our plan is that now that we'll have a stable, complete, finished version of the game, our focus is going to be on house rules.

This is exactly us. (I'm not posting this reply to discourage the original poster -- I wish you all the luck in the world! -- but just to express support for this idea of finally being able to fine-tune a complete game for our group.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Purple Duck Games is currently Playtesting their Porphyra RPG, which is a continuation of PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not very familiar with the jargon include in every Pathfinder book, but are we allowed to make changes and updates to share? I remember with the 3.5 it was a big deal to do that, only changes made could be used by the person/group that made the changes (I believe the term used was personal use). Some of you may remember Demonslye from these boards who dropped off because of issues such as this. He was REAL good at making conversions.

I, too, have looked at various aspects of the new edition and while there are some nuggets in there that look nice, it seems too much of a 4.5 clone (new term I just coined which means somewhere between fourth and fifth editions) to me and I did not like either of those editions.

If point one of my post is not an issue and we can truly share our changes, than I am definitely in, however, I will not initially be available for much because of new home/job requirements which are sucking up all my free time (I can barely prep for my weekly game as it is and it shows, I am personally embarrassed by that). I even had to put my master's degree on hold for the year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endzeitgeist wrote:
Purple Duck Games is currently Playtesting their Porphyra RPG, which is a continuation of PF1.

Developments like this were the quite predictable consequence of Paizo lending the appearance of abandoning its previous body of work (when it primarily earned its success and notoriety from promising to continue that work when the previous company abandoned that body of work).

--In the same way the Paizo swiped D&D's crown after 3e was mothballed, they risk the same thing happening to them, and, unlike D&D, they don't have Hasbro dumping an endless bucket of money over them to soothe the pain of marketplace stumbles. (And I'm pretty that the last thing any of us wants to see if Hasbro buy out Paizo.)


Endzeitgeist wrote:
Purple Duck Games is currently Playtesting their Porphyra RPG, which is a continuation of PF1.

What are the changes/differences?


@SilvercatMoonpaw:

It's currently being WIP, but the Fighter-changes, for example, look promising:

https://purpleduckgames.blog/2018/07/28/fighters/

And make stuff unique:

https://purpleduckgames.blog/2018/07/31/replacing-sneak-attack/

I'm intrigued to see where the ducks will take this!


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Slim Jim wrote:
Endzeitgeist wrote:
Purple Duck Games is currently Playtesting their Porphyra RPG, which is a continuation of PF1.
Developments like this were the quite predictable consequence of Paizo lending the appearance of abandoning its previous body of work (when it primarily earned its success and notoriety from promising to continue that work when the previous company abandoned that body of work).

Well that was ten years ago, which is more than the entire lifetime of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 put together. I don't think that this was ever intended as a promise until death do us part.


Zolanoteph wrote:
I fully support your decision to try and continue 3.5/3.75. what kind of ideas have you had?

My group has a number of ideas we want to compile into a new pdf so we have a solid product to pull content from.

I am also very keen on cleaning up and trimming the fat on some of the things that still need it to make a more fine tuned complete game. For example, a complete cleric rework as I think they are lacking in a lot of areas.

I'm up for ideas that people would like to see trimmed up so we can "get to work." Throw some ideas out there, people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be sticking with PF myself instead of DnD 4.5. I already use multiple house rules to fix some of PF's issues, including replacing the vancian spell system with a modified spell point system.

I am looking over the playtest for things to cannibalize from it, of the ideas I do like, such as the ancestral feats. An additional feat line to draw upon new and awesome race-specific things that doesn't take from your general feats is a brilliant idea. Race feats in base PF1e are mostly ignored because they don't compare to general feats like Power Attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DaveMage wrote:

I can see where your coming from, Fnipernackle, and I'm sticking with PF1 too, but I don't *want* any new content. There's just *so much* that I have left to explore in PF1 that I'm looking forward to not having to buy or create anything else for a very, very long time.

Do you really need to create new content at this point instead of exploring the thousands of pages of content that's already available?

Now that said, if you (and others) enjoy creating new content, then absolutely do so!

Eh there's a few ideas I've wanted to toy around with and share with other players. Ideas/options that don't exist in PF1. Have some decent baselines to work but not the actual thing.

An example; Oh how about an Alchemist that uses all their extracts/mutagens on this random dog/animal and uses that to fight.

That and we don't have I suppose info packs for all the settings? Need to go see if Geb has something.

Really even if I don't play them all, I'd like to see an Adventure Path for every region maybe? Not country necessarily.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish Paizo nothing but the best of luck with PF2. But my group has decided that PF Classic is the version we'll stick with until we one day "retire" from gaming. We've invested so much into 3.5 and PF Classic, both money and time, that to learn a new rule set and and make the the Classic version obsolete just wouldn't be worth it.

Having said that, I'm afraid I'd not be very helpful in creating content. I look forward to seeing what the rest of the group does, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Endzeitgeist wrote:
Purple Duck Games is currently Playtesting their Porphyra RPG, which is a continuation of PF1.
Developments like this were the quite predictable consequence of Paizo lending the appearance of abandoning its previous body of work (when it primarily earned its success and notoriety from promising to continue that work when the previous company abandoned that body of work).
Well that was ten years ago, which is more than the entire lifetime of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 put together. I don't think that this was ever intended as a promise until death do us part.

When a system has that kind of longevity, what gamers are expecting is a continual process of refinement, not a WOTC-style wholesale planned-obsolescence-qua-marketing-model to herd the crowd into replacing all their books every decade. PFS players (myself included) might have been occasionally miffed whenever Paizo nerfed a particular piece of not-well-thought-out ubercheese that had us all buying a splatbook just to "legally" have it in that campaign, but most of us, I think, expected it to happen at some point, as a part of aforementioned refinement. But wholesale incompatibility? Really? Nobody gravitating from 3e in the first place desired that, then or now.

With PF2, Paizo really better have the best RPG ever, or they're going to have a hard time attracting more new customers than the number who cold-turkey quit and shift to 3rd-parties keeping the flame alive. This thread isn't inspiring confidence. (Elsewhere, I can't imagine that the deflating-balloon squeal of the Kathleen Kennedy "Star Wars" franchise is doing Starfinder any favors.)

Silver Crusade

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

2000 called, wants the "radical edition change" flamewar back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"We'll take the halflings and the gnomes, but we don't want the dragonfolk!"


Gorbacz wrote:
2000 called, wants the "radical edition change" flamewar back.

Also.....what was 4e? 2008?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would think there is a market for 3.8 or whatever you want to call it.
Paizo should produce both Pathfinder 2 and a continuation of Pathfinder 1 that way the people that are upset about this direction stay with Pathfinder. I would think an upgrade would be far easier to do than a whole new game and if people here are enlisted for ideas a new edition could be pretty painless to accomplish. It could even include ideas from pf2 and maybe "bridge the gap". Backwards compatibility is the key.
The "new edition" could even be a supplement of rules (more extensive than unchained) instead of a wholesale rulebook, maybe this would be easier.
If the Pathfinder 1 rulebook is available as an editable PDF maybe posting that and letting people have at could work.
I know paizo has to do something to bring in new players, but losing too many of the old ones will kill them too.
Just a thought


Well, for those of you interested, should we begin listing what we would like to trim and fine tune? Also, would people be more interested doing this on here or on a social media outlet (face [cough] book)? I have a few people not on the forums that I know of that are interested in this. I'll start.

I'd like to see a reworked cleric. Druids get up to 9th level spells and have all kinds of abilities as well. Imo, the divine spell list is subpar to the arcane list, so I understand why sorcerer and wizard don't get abilities every single level. The domain powers, and most of the spell for that matter, aren't that good so that's no a big factor, and all they get other than that is channel energy. So I would like to see a reworked version to bring them up to par. Oracles are so much more flavorable and have a number of abilities other than spells so I think we may need to have a feature similar to mysteries for the cleric (maybe church backgrounds or some other name).

Also, not that we need to give it to them, but why do paladins get lay on hands and clerics don't? Just a thought.


Do we really need to keep the Cleric?


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Do we really need to keep the Cleric?

Lol.

I think we do. It fits a niche none of the other classes do. I like the concept of the cleric, but I dislike the execution. It's always been a class that bothered me and I always looked at players weird when I hear they are playing one. If it's for character purposes, I understand, but when it comes to mechanics, I don't see why they would want to. I just think they need something more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Fnipernackle,
What I am about to say is in no way a denunciation of your idea, but here are some ideas for why I think things are the way they are vis a vis clerics:

1. spell casting less than wizards. Likely due to a separation of duties when it comes to the adventuring party. The big crossover was in buffs (I really dislike the term, but it gets my point across). Does it need to stay this way, not so much, but the largest difference was that a cleric always had access to their full spell list, while a wizard had to learn/find most of theirs after the initial allotment, which cost money.

2. Druids, similar to the cleric, full access to list, but the main stay was the difference in spells as the druid focused on summoning and nature related spells, as fit their niche and they had shape changing instead of healing/turning. Again, I see no reason why druids cannot really get more spells.

3. Do not knock channel energy, it is area effect and applies offensively or defensively. Used properly, it is a game changer compared to the versions before they had it (when all they could do was either scare away undead or disintegrate them if high enough level).

4. Oracles are not so much my forte, they are relatively new to me, so I will leave comparisons of them to someone with a better understanding. What I do know is they are the divine answer to the sorcerer class which is why they have less spells and more abilities (even if they lack the mainstay divine abilities of clerics).

5. Paladins and lay on hands is a vestige from the time before Paladins could use healing spells, that was their form of healing until their spells came online, but even then, they lagged so far behind what a cleric could do, it was not worth spending those limited spells on healing when they did have the lay on hands ability, so they got to use those spells for other things. They were a cleric that was far closer to the holy fighter spectrum than the spell casting spectrum. This is why their spells come online so late and so slowly. Further, the lay on hands ability is abysmal in comparison to the cleric channel energy, even if the channel only affected one character instead of all in a burst. It felt more like an emergency stabilization than actual healing.

Anyway, just some thoughts to help bring perspective to why things are separate as they are (or at least that was my goal). Do clerics need changes? In my experienced opinion, I do not think so, but I am also not opposed to hearing your solution and see how it would fit in with everything else out there. Honestly, I think clerics are one of the more solid classes available.

What I would like to see tackled first would be some of the rules inconsistencies that have been earmarked along the way that the rules designers have refused to acknowledge/fix. I know someone out there has been keeping track...

Also, I think the only thing 4E got right was skill challenges (do not get me wrong, they still need a lot of work to bring into this system, but the concept was solid). Rogue Genius Games has a PDF called Skill Challenge Handbook, but I am not sure it is a definitive source.


Variant channeling should probably be in core and exclusive to clerics, but still optional. Gives players a choice to focus their character more on their domains.


Also, though maybe this is going too far, I feel like clerics shouldn't get so many proficiencies by default. Maybe that could be a domain ability. But I think warpriest has "fighting priest" covered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fnipernackle wrote:
...(maybe church backgrounds or some other name).

"Philosophies". Defines how a cleric goes about supporting their religion's tenets and interpreting their god's teachings: Zealous, Even-handed, Contemplative, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Fnipernackle wrote:
...(maybe church backgrounds or some other name).
"Philosophies". Defines how a cleric goes about supporting their religion's tenets and interpreting their god's teachings: Zealous, Even-handed, Contemplative, etc.

I really like this concept. I would like us to expand on this some more.


Fnipernackle wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
"Philosophies". Defines how a cleric goes about supporting their religion's tenets and interpreting their god's teachings: Zealous, Even-handed, Contemplative, etc.
I really like this concept. I would like us to expand on this some more.

I'll probably need some more names, but I can try to come up with descriptive pitches for the ones I mentioned:

Zealous: Burn the heretic! Gets powers that let them fight and hurt, maybe also divination abilities to root out enemies. Maybe steal some stuff from Inquisitor.

Even-handed: Tries to be fair to every point of view. Diplomatic/social abilities: this is the "talky" build.

Contemplative: Esoteric mysticism. Think gnosticism, kabbalah, or New Age guruism. Maybe steal some stuff from the Occult classes for a psychic tinge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm interested. I'm generally okay with most of the current rule set and am comfortable fixing things ad hoc, but it's neat seeing other attempts to keep things fresh.

Gorbacz wrote:
2000 called, wants the "radical edition change" flamewar back.

They have the wrong number. I don't see a flamewar here. : )


Thedmstrikes wrote:

@Fnipernackle,

What I am about to say is in no way a denunciation of your idea, but here are some ideas for why I think things are the way they are vis a vis clerics:

1. spell casting less than wizards. Likely due to a separation of duties when it comes to the adventuring party. The big crossover was in buffs (I really dislike the term, but it gets my point across). Does it need to stay this way, not so much, but the largest difference was that a cleric always had access to their full spell list, while a wizard had to learn/find most of theirs after the initial allotment, which cost money.

2. Druids, similar to the cleric, full access to list, but the main stay was the difference in spells as the druid focused on summoning and nature related spells, as fit their niche and they had shape changing instead of healing/turning. Again, I see no reason why druids cannot really get more spells.

3. Do not knock channel energy, it is area effect and applies offensively or defensively. Used properly, it is a game changer compared to the versions before they had it (when all they could do was either scare away undead or disintegrate them if high enough level).

4. Oracles are not so much my forte, they are relatively new to me, so I will leave comparisons of them to someone with a better understanding. What I do know is they are the divine answer to the sorcerer class which is why they have less spells and more abilities (even if they lack the mainstay divine abilities of clerics).

5. Paladins and lay on hands is a vestige from the time before Paladins could use healing spells, that was their form of healing until their spells came online, but even then, they lagged so far behind what a cleric could do, it was not worth spending those limited spells on healing when they did have the lay on hands ability, so they got to use those spells for other things. They were a cleric that was far closer to the holy fighter spectrum than the spell casting spectrum. This is why their spells come online so...

Gonna reply to your points. Not trying to fight or anything, I just wanna explain my point of view on it. Some may think the class is fine as is, but my group and myself feel it is lacking and want to spice it up a bit, so to speak.

1) I understand that their casting will be different than an arcane caster. They can't have as powerful a spell list since they get medium BAB. Their big thing is buffs (I don't like the term either, but it is what it is), but my issue with buffs is that they take rounds in combat because most of them last minutes or rounds, and casting outside of combat may be a waste since time is subjective out of combat. Most buffs don't give multiple bonuses so if you want to get really prepped for the fight, by the time you get ready combat is over since combat lasting over 10 rounds is rare and combat lasts around 4-5 rounds on average depending on the fight. So every round counts and no one wants to buff for 3 rounds, swing for 2 and be done. I'm fine with their spell list being as it is, but I don't agree with people thinking the class is fine as written based on it has 9th level spells. Their spells aren't as powerful so they still need something to help them out. Oracles get some spells that only appear on arcane lists based on their mystery. I think this can be done for clerics as well.

2) Druids can still be powerful casters, and having looked at their spells and having played a lot of arcane casters, I believe they have a good spell list and are capable of some great things. Imo, they have a more powerful spell list than clerics, and yet they still get a bunch of abilities on top of that. Sure, trackless step isn't something that will come up a lot and overall is pretty minor, but it is still a cool and favorable ability and can be a saving grace in some scenarios.

3) Channel energy is a good ability, I'm not knocking it at all. It is a giant upgrade from Turn Undead they got in 3.0/3.5. Sure, it can be used offensively, but only against targets that take damage from positive energy (assuming the cleric is of good alignment). If you are fighting multiple humanoids that aren't damaged by positive energy, the cleric has to be careful popping CE cause he will heal everyone, not just his party, and it's highly unlikely they will be in the right position to get the benefit and not give it to their enemies. While it is a good ability and a wonderful upgrade from previous versions, it isn't by itself enough to limit giving them other abilities.

4) I love Oracles, and I would play one every time over clerics due to that I prefer spontaneous casters and I love the flavor. I don't understand what mainstay abilities clerics get over oracles, since I don't think they NEED channel energy to be an effective healer. I would consider oracles better healers than paladins when it comes to healing the party.

5) Thanks for explaining that. I think the history is cool. I don't think clerics need lay on hands, but I was curious why the "quintessential healer" of the game didn't have it.

I agree that skill challenges from 4E were a good implementation, and I wouldn't mind taking a closer look at those and maybe putting together some rules.

I'd like to hear what rules inconsistencies you want us to look at, since that's what we're doing here.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Fnipernackle wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
"Philosophies". Defines how a cleric goes about supporting their religion's tenets and interpreting their god's teachings: Zealous, Even-handed, Contemplative, etc.
I really like this concept. I would like us to expand on this some more.

I'll probably need some more names, but I can try to come up with descriptive pitches for the ones I mentioned:

Zealous: Burn the heretic! Gets powers that let them fight and hurt, maybe also divination abilities to root out enemies. Maybe steal some stuff from Inquisitor.

Even-handed: Tries to be fair to every point of view. Diplomatic/social abilities: this is the "talky" build.

Contemplative: Esoteric mysticism. Think gnosticism, kabbalah, or New Age guruism. Maybe steal some stuff from the Occult classes for a psychic tinge.

I can come up with a bunch of these. Are we doing these similar to Oracle mysteries with abilities tied to them?


Fnipernackle wrote:
Are we doing these similar to Oracle mysteries with abilities tied to them?

It depends: do you want to have that kind of flexibility over the less-choice-paralysis-inducing set progression type?


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Fnipernackle wrote:
Are we doing these similar to Oracle mysteries with abilities tied to them?
It depends: do you want to have that kind of flexibility over the less-choice-paralysis-inducing set progression type?

Yes. I prefer being able to pick your abilities better, since if there are two of that class in the party, they more than likely will be different due to their choices. Plus, some of the set abilities they give you with some classes (I'm looking at you, gunslinger) are next to worthless.


Fnipernackle wrote:
I prefer being able to pick your abilities better, since if there are two of that class in the party, they more than likely will be different due to their choices. Plus, some of the set abilities they give you with some classes (I'm looking at you, gunslinger) are next to worthless.

Then we can do it that way. It's not going to matter to me: I can't create new mechanics in this game, so I'm not going to be writing the rules text.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Do we know, is Purple Duck planning to do organized play scenarios?


If you really want to do something it may be a good idea to create a forum orb Facebook group


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Forum orb sounds like a euphemism for palantír.


Zolanoteph wrote:
If you really want to do something it may be a good idea to create a forum orb Facebook group

Forum orb? Also, I already have a Facebook group for this. Send me a private message and I'll send you a link, unless I can post it here. I'm not sure how that sort of thing is viewed on here.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Pathfinder 1st Edition Continuation Project All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.