So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without an XXXXXX class option?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Corrik wrote:
Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.

+1


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.
+1

Yeah. : (

Any good (balanced and playtest-proven) 3pp solutions for that one?


avr wrote:
There's a masterpiece for that UAE.

That's good as far as it goes, but it doesn't enable you to mime-cast anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.
+1

I'm with you there. They never even updated it to include the new casters.

In my campaign, I renamed it "runecasting" and the material component is always a bag full of rune stones.


darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.

Not sure if this is a serious request, but... wouldn't that just be a rogue or swashbuckler of some sort? If not, what would you be expecting? What would you give up the spellcasting to get?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards are relevant outside of combat so they must be casters by definition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.

It's a shame, but there was no realistic way to fix Words of Power without a massive content injection. You'd need to add literally hundreds of new words to really get it to work smoothly, and several classes would need archetype and alternate rule support because they just do so badly under the words of power subsystem. I just don't think there was any realistic way Paizo was going to be able to put out enough support for the subsystem to take off, so I'm not surprised it was summarily abandoned and has remained that way.


Darkbridger wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.
Not sure if this is a serious request, but... wouldn't that just be a rogue or swashbuckler of some sort? If not, what would you be expecting? What would you give up the spellcasting to get?

If you ever played the Wizard of the Coast version of Star Wars (or the Dragonlance campaign), you could see they had a "noble" class that was basically a bard without spells. In addition to the equivalent of bardic music bonuses and penalties, they could do things like demand enemies surrender, access extra resources for the party, convince authorities to let them go, quickly use diplomacy in combat, and get everybody in to the best parties. I would have liked to see Paizo improve on it as either a spell-less bard archetype or even its own class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.

I feel it was a real missed opportunity not making the Skald that.


Melkiador wrote:
A cleric can be good with a bow. The problem is that no matter how good he gets with a bow, by a certain level he will almost always be better off ditching the bow and just casting his spells every round.

Crusader archetype helps with that, and so do the amazing buffs you can get via cleric spells... Erastil's Distracting Shot divine fighting technique and Deadeye Bowman trait means I can easily slap +2 to AC on whoever is fighting in the front line... at higher levels, sure, the martials get overwhelmingly better, and they should... but I find that bow clerics are less useless than melee ones (whatever my intent or build, it's the melee cleric types that I've never been able to get to make actual attacks... a bow cleric doesn't need to cross the battlefield every time he wants to roll an attack)


Albatoonoe wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.
I feel it was a real missed opportunity not making the Skald that.

hey, don't touch the Skald spells... I love me my haste at the beginning of every fight! ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Darkbridger wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.
Not sure if this is a serious request, but... wouldn't that just be a rogue or swashbuckler of some sort? If not, what would you be expecting? What would you give up the spellcasting to get?

If you ever played the Wizard of the Coast version of Star Wars (or the Dragonlance campaign), you could see they had a "noble" class that was basically a bard without spells. In addition to the equivalent of bardic music bonuses and penalties, they could do things like demand enemies surrender, access extra resources for the party, convince authorities to let them go, quickly use diplomacy in combat, and get everybody in to the best parties. I would have liked to see Paizo improve on it as either a spell-less bard archetype or even its own class.

See also: the starfinder envoy. You'd have to do a lot of math adjustment to get it to work properly in pathfinder, but the concept is there.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

and get everybody in to the best parties.

This part at least is an absolutely delightful perk of the Dandy Ranger.


Sort of a spell-less Bard: VMC Bard or Exemplar Brawler; for more Bardic power, add a Cavalier dip (or for VMC Bard even a long run of Cavalier) to either of these and go into the Battle Herald prestige class.


Here's a small but personally irksome one. A bard archetype that gets spell kenning. The closest thing is the wyrm singer skald.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Sort of a spell-less Bard: VMC Bard or Exemplar Brawler; for more Bardic power, add a Cavalier dip (or for VMC Bard even a long run of Cavalier) to either of these and go into the Battle Herald prestige class.

I like the Exemplar well enough, but the Brawler chassis comes with a lot of baggage that makes it less useful for a lot of concepts that would want to be a martial bard. The Brawler doesn't make for a good dignified military commander with its usual weapon choices.


How about if you think of the Exemplar Brawler as some kind of hybrid of Western Monk and inspirational brick superhero?


That's... what it is, yes? It certainly does a good job of fulfilling some concepts, it's just not as wide as I would like it to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I really miss is an archetype, feat, or trait that allows an unchained Barbarian to enter a Rage Stance as a swift action (or free action as part of entering a rage)!

Arachnofiend wrote:
The Brawler doesn't make for a good dignified military commander with its usual weapon choices.

If you want to build a "dignified military commander" with bardic performance and good martial abilities, Paladin with Oath of the People's Council is just about perfect.

darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.

Because it's virtually impossible to make a spell-less archetype for 6/9 casters that isn't an enormous downgrade?

Dark Archive

darth_borehd wrote:
If you ever played the Wizard of the Coast version of Star Wars (or the Dragonlance campaign), you could see they had a "noble" class that was basically a bard without spells.

Back in 3rd edition, Green Ronin put out a Noble class that got free Leadership, some random low-powered class options from other classes, bard-like inspiration (only based on inspiring rhetoric and not music), and a much enhanced ability with the Aid Other action. It was updated (and made stranger...) for PF in the Freeport Companion. (Less of the fluffier 'free housing for self and guests by crashing with local nobles' stuff and a kind of ridiculous buff to the Aid Other option, IIRC.)

When 3rd edition first came out, I was perplexed the the Sorcerer seemed to get their spontaneous spellcasting from sources like 'my great-grandfather was a dragon,' and yet all bards had that, just 'cause. I kind of liked the idea of bards being *prepared* spellcasters, being the ultimate dabblers, knowing a little bit of fighting, a little bit of skulking, and a little bit of arcane spellcasting, and having sheafs of paper and loose scrolls of spells in their packs that they'd review in the morning (when the fog lifted and the head stopped pounding...) to refresh their spells.

Even if that wasn't the only option, it certainly would have been an interesting alternative, an Int-based prepared Bard. (Slightly more MAD than a standard Cha-based spontaneous Bard, but slightly more versatile, spell-wise.)

And that would have made the ultimate 'Noble' class. Just use Perform (oratory) for Bardic Inspiration, and mix with a smattering of fighting, a smattering of spellcraft and some small knack for intrigue and 'skillmonkeying.' No singing or musical instruments. It's all, 'Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for ME!'

Shadow Lodge

Paizo could have gone along patching all the leaks in pathfinder 1e, instead they decided to make a new boat. The thing with 1e archetypes is that they are designed as such specific packages that they need to be written over and over. Like there's a uses guns archetype for almost every class. They had to make and remake the same rules over and over instead of having one set of rules that could be applied to any class. The nature of this original archetype system means that the were never going to be able to cover every possibility that people want, and having multiple rules for the same thing opens up a lot more possibilities for unintentionally broken combinations.
There's a lot of archetypes I'd like to see too, but I understand why they never happened. Thankfully we have an awesome community of 3pp to cover this stuff.


GM PDK wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
A cleric can be good with a bow. The problem is that no matter how good he gets with a bow, by a certain level he will almost always be better off ditching the bow and just casting his spells every round.
Crusader archetype helps with that, and so do the amazing buffs you can get via cleric spells... Erastil's Distracting Shot divine fighting technique and Deadeye Bowman trait means I can easily slap +2 to AC on whoever is fighting in the front line... at higher levels, sure, the martials get overwhelmingly better, and they should... but I find that bow clerics are less useless than melee ones (whatever my intent or build, it's the melee cleric types that I've never been able to get to make actual attacks... a bow cleric doesn't need to cross the battlefield every time he wants to roll an attack)

You may have missed my point. It's not that the cleric can't be good with a bow. It is that past a certain level, spell casting will almost always be a better use of your actions than attacking with a bow. And it feels crummy to be good at something you barely ever get around to doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We never got a much-needed Pathfinderized Book of Erotic Fantasy.

*shakes head contemptuously*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:

Paizo could have gone along patching all the leaks in pathfinder 1e, instead they decided to make a new boat. The thing with 1e archetypes is that they are designed as such specific packages that they need to be written over and over. Like there's a uses guns archetype for almost every class. They had to make and remake the same rules over and over instead of having one set of rules that could be applied to any class. The nature of this original archetype system means that the were never going to be able to cover every possibility that people want, and having multiple rules for the same thing opens up a lot more possibilities for unintentionally broken combinations.

There's a lot of archetypes I'd like to see too, but I understand why they never happened. Thankfully we have an awesome community of 3pp to cover this stuff.

What really gets me about all the "uses guns" archetypes is that the vast majority of them are very nearly unusable.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.
It's a shame, but there was no realistic way to fix Words of Power without a massive content injection. You'd need to add literally hundreds of new words to really get it to work smoothly, and several classes would need archetype and alternate rule support because they just do so badly under the words of power subsystem. I just don't think there was any realistic way Paizo was going to be able to put out enough support for the subsystem to take off, so I'm not surprised it was summarily abandoned and has remained that way.

Spheres of Power might just do the trick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Far too many PF archetypes radiated an aura (3+ WIS mod per day ;) ) of ..... "OMG its 8.30am on Monday morning, I've got a savage hangover and I'm supposed to have written up that archetype for the next splat release by 9am!"

AKA..... badly thought out and rushed


Melkiador wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
A cleric can be good with a bow. The problem is that no matter how good he gets with a bow, by a certain level he will almost always be better off ditching the bow and just casting his spells every round.
Crusader archetype helps with that, and so do the amazing buffs you can get via cleric spells... Erastil's Distracting Shot divine fighting technique and Deadeye Bowman trait means I can easily slap +2 to AC on whoever is fighting in the front line... at higher levels, sure, the martials get overwhelmingly better, and they should... but I find that bow clerics are less useless than melee ones (whatever my intent or build, it's the melee cleric types that I've never been able to get to make actual attacks... a bow cleric doesn't need to cross the battlefield every time he wants to roll an attack)
You may have missed my point. It's not that the cleric can't be good with a bow. It is that past a certain level, spell casting will almost always be a better use of your actions than attacking with a bow. And it feels crummy to be good at something you barely ever get around to doing.

My solution is to multiclass the cleric into something with better BAB, feats, and with a one level of spellcasting tax.


doc roc wrote:

Far too many PF archetypes radiated an aura (3+ WIS mod per day ;) ) of ..... "OMG its 8.30am on Monday morning, I've got a savage hangover and I'm supposed to have written up that archetype for the next splat release by 9am!"

AKA..... badly thought out and rushed

Yes, they should have written those at 4:20 pm after sleeping in all day, being on the West Coast and all...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
What really gets me about all the "uses guns" archetypes is that the vast majority of them are very nearly unusable.

Ultimately this is a consequence of the way Paizo chose to balance firearms, making the weapon itself incredibly underpowered and then compensating by giving the gunslinger unprecedented abilities that counterbalanced that weakness. The result was that firearm archetypes for other classes needed to give a huge selection of bonus feats away for free while also providing class features that would have been ludicrously overpowered with any other fighting style. This is just really hard to balance, and on the limited amount of development time that archetypes get it's not surprising that most of them ended up being underwhelming.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
doc roc wrote:

Far too many PF archetypes radiated an aura (3+ WIS mod per day ;) ) of ..... "OMG its 8.30am on Monday morning, I've got a savage hangover and I'm supposed to have written up that archetype for the next splat release by 9am!"

AKA..... badly thought out and rushed

Yes, they should have written those at 4:20 pm after sleeping in all day, being on the West Coast and all...

This sounds amazingly attractive . . . .

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm far less upset about ending PF1 without X option than I am with ending PF1 without fixing the hundreds of broken or unclear options they did publish.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Andostre wrote:

We never got a much-needed Pathfinderized Book of Erotic Fantasy.

*shakes head contemptuously*

We did get exactly that :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
I'm blown away that to this day we still don't have good support for a Fighter that dual wields a longsword/shortsword combo...

Or like, is there a good rapier/duelling dagger option? I haven't seen one, though that's no guarantee.

For that matter, the elven thornblade/leafblade combo is in the same boat.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
A cleric can be good with a bow. The problem is that no matter how good he gets with a bow, by a certain level he will almost always be better off ditching the bow and just casting his spells every round.
Crusader archetype helps with that, and so do the amazing buffs you can get via cleric spells... Erastil's Distracting Shot divine fighting technique and Deadeye Bowman trait means I can easily slap +2 to AC on whoever is fighting in the front line... at higher levels, sure, the martials get overwhelmingly better, and they should... but I find that bow clerics are less useless than melee ones (whatever my intent or build, it's the melee cleric types that I've never been able to get to make actual attacks... a bow cleric doesn't need to cross the battlefield every time he wants to roll an attack)
You may have missed my point. It's not that the cleric can't be good with a bow. It is that past a certain level, spell casting will almost always be a better use of your actions than attacking with a bow. And it feels crummy to be good at something you barely ever get around to doing.

It requires a three-level hit to divine spell progression, but a high-level cleric (or oracle) can dip one level in bard/skald and take two levels in arcane archer. The Imbue Arrow ability only specifies area spells, it is not limited to arcane area spells. There are less area spells on the cleric/oracle spell list than the sorcerer/wizard spell list, but you can still shoot an arrow and have a sound burst, chaos hammer/holy smite/order's wrath/unholy blight, flame strike, etc. go off centered on the target.


FWIW, a Separatist Cleric of Erastil (for the protection domain) who takes the hinterlander prestige class can pull off the imbue arrow AMF trick earlier than a caster-focused arcane archer can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I'm blown away that to this day we still don't have good support for a Fighter that dual wields a longsword/shortsword combo...

Or like, is there a good rapier/duelling dagger option? I haven't seen one, though that's no guarantee.

For that matter, the elven thornblade/leafblade combo is in the same boat.

For what it's worth, Spheres of Might offers some pretty solid support for characters that want to TWF with two different weapons.

Sovereign Court

GM PDK wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
A cleric can be good with a bow. The problem is that no matter how good he gets with a bow, by a certain level he will almost always be better off ditching the bow and just casting his spells every round.
Crusader archetype helps with that, and so do the amazing buffs you can get via cleric spells... Erastil's Distracting Shot divine fighting technique and Deadeye Bowman trait means I can easily slap +2 to AC on whoever is fighting in the front line... at higher levels, sure, the martials get overwhelmingly better, and they should... but I find that bow clerics are less useless than melee ones (whatever my intent or build, it's the melee cleric types that I've never been able to get to make actual attacks... a bow cleric doesn't need to cross the battlefield every time he wants to roll an attack)

They made a melee cleric who can get around the battlefield: herald caller!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
darth_borehd wrote:
Why have they never made a bard archetype that does not cast spells? I have been scratching my head on that one.

Came here to say this.

And no, not a Rogue or a Swashbuckler- someone who can still do Bardic Masterpieces, inspire courage, countersong, and all of that, but who doesn't also spit out cure spells between battles.

Orpheus, dammit!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FWIW, a Separatist Cleric of Erastil (for the protection domain) who takes the hinterlander prestige class can pull off the imbue arrow AMF trick earlier than a caster-focused arcane archer can.

For your convenience, here's the cheesiest of the cheese I have been able to think up yet: Even though it is behind by 2(*) in spellcasting progression, you still eventually get 9th level spellcasting): Human Ranger 2/Cleric (Foundation of Faith, Separatist) of Erastil 3/Hinterlander x, except replace the 9th level floating feat with Clustered Shots, and all level-up ability score increases go to Wisdom. More archery feats than a single-classed Ranger by level 10, and 9/9 spellcasting progression but not caster level delayed by only 2 levels, but with Anti-Magic Shell coming very timely, and Base Attack Bonus only lagging a single-class Ranger by 1 until you pass level 15.


Aside from class options, there are still several things that I wished were addressed:
- Words of Power being expanded, as they were cut short in Ultimate Magic

- Mythic rules not being expanded in later books after its initial release

- No Medium Dragonborn-like race... outside of a Giant Kobold or Wyvaran; kinda wished you could apply the oversized Goblin trait to a Kobold

- No warhammer equivalent for the Dwarven Waraxe (Exotic One-handed 1d10, B, x3)

- No stronger staves (Martial 1d8/1d8 and Exotic 1d10/1d10)

- No reworked rules for staves (recharging them should be simplier)

- No scalable magic items from Unchained... from Unchained Classes are constantly updated with archetypes

- No booklet to further expand more deities, especially Demon and Empyreal Lords

- No booklet to wrap up kaijus


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a fully INT-based (Un)Monk archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a Rageless Barbarian archetype?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a juicy late-level Gunslinger feat to encourage single-class builds?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without Alchemist discoveries that grant them outsider-binding abilities?

You missed a few:

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without an Oracle option to Channel Negative Energy to Harm Living/Heal Undead?

So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without a Shaman option to Channel Negative Energy to Harm Living/Heal Undead?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Back in 3rd edition, Green Ronin put out a Noble class that got free Leadership, some random low-powered class options from other classes, bard-like inspiration (only based on inspiring rhetoric and not music), and a much enhanced ability with the Aid Other action. It was updated (and made stranger...) for PF in the Freeport Companion. (Less of the fluffier 'free housing for self and guests by crashing with local nobles' stuff and a kind of ridiculous buff to the Aid Other option, IIRC.)

The noble class was updated for Pathfinder in Freeport: The City of Adventure (Second Edition).


JiCi wrote:

Aside from class options, there are still several things that I wished were addressed:

[...]
- No Medium Dragonborn-like race... outside of a Giant Kobold or Wyvaran; kinda wished you could apply the oversized Goblin trait to a Kobold

I would have liked to see this, too. It would give me more options in my home campaign, where dragon-backed kobolds have become a major nation. (Sure, they're terrifying in large enough groups, but pretty underwhelming individually.)

Plus, dragonborn are almost certainly my daughter's favorite D&D 5E race. She'd be ecstatic to play something analogous in PF!

Dark Archive

JiCi wrote:
- No warhammer equivalent for the Dwarven Waraxe (Exotic One-handed 1d10, B, x3)

An improved (exotic) dwarven longhammer and / or dwarven throwing axe / throwing hammer options would be neat.

More fun options for staves and daggers would also have been cool. (Such as a 'cordcutter' Exotic Weapon dagger option for clerics of Pharasma, that had dagger stats, but also the deadly property and a x3 crit multiplier, or similar optional weapons for various clerics that got saddled with a Simple Favored Weapon, such as a 'shielded crossbow' (with a keyhole shaped 'sight') that combined a crossbow and shield into a single weapon/device for clerics of Abadar.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Words of Power support. Simply flabbergasted by that one.
It's a shame, but there was no realistic way to fix Words of Power without a massive content injection. You'd need to add literally hundreds of new words to really get it to work smoothly, and several classes would need archetype and alternate rule support because they just do so badly under the words of power subsystem. I just don't think there was any realistic way Paizo was going to be able to put out enough support for the subsystem to take off, so I'm not surprised it was summarily abandoned and has remained that way.

Yep, Paizo wrote themselves into a corner with Words of Power--or, more positively, expected GMs to expand it as they liked seeing as it was an optional rule set already. It'd require a large standalone supplement to bring up to date, and it's more viable for 3pp to release a product to fill that niche than it is for Paizo to spend a lot to make a top quality book that the majority of players won't be able to use.


I've always seen it that way that the Kineticist is Paizo's official Words of Power replacement.


Derklord wrote:
I've always seen it that way that the Kineticist is Paizo's official Words of Power replacement.

Huh.


Words of Power seems much more workable in 2E if they stick to the "there are only 4 (perhaps eventually 6) spell lists, period" model. So I have some hope for that one coming back and being better next time around.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I dunno why this got skipped out, but a Vigilante archetype that uses the kineticist burn mechanics. Having an elemental superhero is kind of a staple, and it would be nice to have.

51 to 100 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So, are we seriously wrapping up 1E without an XXXXXX class option? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.