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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

UnArcaneElection wrote:
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.

What do Separatist and Foundation of the Faith do for the build, other than preventing you to use a longbow?

I'm personally going with Cleric 5 (Crusader) / Hinterlander X, but I'm opened to suggestions (read: open to cheese ideas... :P)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Separatist lets you take the protection domain, which gets you anti-magic field as a 6th level spell (like wizards get) instead of an 8th level spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

. . . And Separatist doesn't prevent you from using a longbow anyway, because while it doesn't give you the proficiency automatically, it doesn't make it forbidden, and the Ranger dip gives you the proficiency anyway.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:


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

A) dragonborn are lame.

B) I don't know if it's actually a copyright thing, but they are definitely iconic to new D&D. Wotc uses them a lot in their marketing, like the paizo goblin. So it makes a lot of sense for paizo to stay away from that, but mostly just A.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

110% just A.


I think we already mentioned it earlier in the thread, but Paizo just stays away from dragon stuff in general. Probably just to gain some distance from the D&D brand.


I mean, I just don't grok the appeal of playing anthro dragons. Most any other weird thing appeals to me more: astomoi, cecaelias, yaddithians, etc. fit in my "high fantasy" mindspace better than dragonkin and or other "big kobolds."

Like if I wanted to be a scaly dude/lady I can play a Nagaji or a Wyvaran.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragon-humanoid hybrids were played out before Weis and Hickman put the pen down on Dragons of Spring Dawning.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Dragon-humanoid hybrids were played out before Weis and Hickman put the pen down on Dragons of Spring Dawning.

I dunno, Knaak got some mileage out of Bridgemaster Kang... admittedly, the debut short story was awesome, whereas the subsequent novel(s?) were... less so.


I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on.

I'm on the fence about what can and what cannot be used by other companines when it comes to D&D stuff. They cannot take Beholders and Mind Flayers (being major antagonistic figures)... as well as the Displacer Beast, which has little impact :S

Ever since dragonborns have been made a core race in D&D 4e and 5e, people have been wanting something similar in Pathfinder. Furthermore, Paizo nerfed the Half-Dragon template so it wouldn't be overused in campaigns. It wasn't just to "stay away", it was also because the template was very powerful on its own.

Here's the thing though: many templates received actual playable races, whether be intended or not, in addition of receiving a lot of racial traits, feats and such to match the template they came from.
- The Half-celestial template got aasimars.
- The Half-fiend template got tieflings.
- The Lycanthrope template got skinwalkers.
- The Vampire template got dhampirs.
- Elemental templates got geniekins.
- Construct templates got wyrwoods.
- Plant templates got both ghorans and vine leshies.
- Fey templates got gathlains.
- Aphorites, dustwalkers and ganzis are planetouched races.

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... which are the equivalent of goblins... Good luck swallowing this pill. Wyvarans? They're a cross between kobolds and wyverns, and both races weren't pushed enough to match the template. It's not just true dragons, but drakes, linnorms and others.

Personally, wyvarans should have been Medium humanoids with the reptilian subtype, instead of dragons, but that's beside of the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on. [...]

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... [...]

Maybe someone finally realized how horribly messed up dragon-human mating would look like...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
JiCi wrote:
I'm on the fence about what can and what cannot be used by other companines when it comes to D&D stuff. They cannot take Beholders and Mind Flayers (being major antagonistic figures)... as well as the Displacer Beast, which has little impact :S

Product Identity and monsters:
Back when WotC created the Open Game License, they also made a somewhat-arbitrary list of monsters from the first Monster Manual that were "Product Identity" and couldn't be used. Off the top of my head, it includes (among others):

beholders
mind flayers
slaadi
githyanki/githzerai
displacer beasts
umber hulks

Interestingly, because WotC allowed the Tome of Horrors to go into publication as an OGL product, several extremely D&D monsters are open content. This includes the demon lords Orcus and Jubilex (misspelled from its D&D equivalent of Juiblex) and the eye of the deep (a variant beholder).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on. [...]

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... [...]

Maybe someone finally realized how horribly messed up dragon-human mating would look like...

I just assume shape shifting was involved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on. [...]

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... [...]

Maybe someone finally realized how horribly messed up dragon-human mating would look like...

Only if you don't believe in yourself


ROTFLMAO


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on.

{. . .}

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... which are the equivalent of goblins... Good luck swallowing this pill.
{. . .}

If they hadn't made Kobolds so horribly nerfed out of the box, this wouldn't have been so bad. Would it have been so game-breaking for them to have not had a -4 Strength penalty?

Kalindlara wrote:
JiCi wrote:
I'm on the fence about what can and what cannot be used by other companines when it comes to D&D stuff. They cannot take Beholders and Mind Flayers (being major antagonistic figures)... as well as the Displacer Beast, which has little impact :S

Product Identity and monsters:
Back when WotC created the Open Game License, they also made a somewhat-arbitrary list of monsters from the first Monster Manual that were "Product Identity" and couldn't be used. Off the top of my head, it includes (among others):

beholders
mind flayers
slaadi
githyanki/githzerai
displacer beasts
umber hulks

Product Identity and monsters:
Actually, Githyanki, Githzeria, and Slaadi are from the Fiend Folio, not the first Monster Manual.

A ranger/hunter with bardic performance!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I can understand that Paizo wants to "stay away from dragon-related stuff" in Pathfinder. However, it's still disappointing taht it wasn't capitalized on.

{. . .}

What did the Half-dragon template got? Kobolds... which are the equivalent of goblins... Good luck swallowing this pill.
{. . .}

If they hadn't made Kobolds so horribly nerfed out of the box, this wouldn't have been so bad. Would it have been so game-breaking for them to have not had a -4 Strength penalty?

They currently have these modifiers:

+2 Dexterity, –4 Strength, –2 Constitution: Kobolds are fast but weak.

Ouch...

These would probably be a better set:
+2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength

They,re fast, physically weak, but they have a tendancy to compare themselves to true dragons. You can say they're boastful, but at this point, just show that they mean business.


JiCi wrote:

They currently have these modifiers:

+2 Dexterity, –4 Strength, –2 Constitution: Kobolds are fast but weak.

Ouch...

These would probably be a better set:
+2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength

They,re fast, physically weak, but they have a tendancy to compare themselves to true dragons. You can say they're boastful, but at this point, just show that they mean business.

Probably the only time you'll see a +2/+2/-2 Stat block on Kobolds are in the new Pathfinder 2E. Unfortunately, 2E Already has +2 Dex/+2 Cha/-2 Str (GOBLINS!), so I doubt Kobolds will have the exact same stat blocks. But this isn't a 2E thread (we already have a thread asking "WHY?!" for Goblin Stat Blocks), so instead I'll ask something else:

Why haven't we seen a -2 STR/-2 DEX/-2 Con/-2 INT/-2 WIS/-2 CHA Race yet? I want to see how they balance it. Lmao

I am also sad they never added something similar to the Mongrelfolk from 3.5 - a mixture of every race in the game through where there blood is so diluted from everything else that they are mixed with.


^I don't know about a whole race, but in case it helps, I have analyzed my ability scores a couple of times, and my point buy is somewhere in the range -3 to +6, depending upon the test site I used . . . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheMonkeyFish wrote:
I am also sad they never added something similar to the Mongrelfolk from 3.5 - a mixture of every race in the game through where there blood is so diluted from everything else that they are mixed with.

The mongrelman came out in Bestiary 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They may backtrack when 2e faceplants.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If 2e “faceplants” there’s not going to be anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
If 2e “faceplants” there’s not going to be anything.

Man, then it'll really suck to be them

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And for all the people who enjoy the games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And for all the people who enjoy the games.

well, if (when) it faceplants that wont be too many.

Silver Crusade

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

I honestly don’t know what kind of logic you’re using to believe that not many people are playing 1st Edition, Starfinder, and/or are excited for 2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I simply don't think it will be enough to compete with 5e. 1e/3.5 fans will buy 2nd hand, others will transition to 5e. Whatevers left behind, well you may think its enough to maintain the company. I have my doubts, because 2e frankly wasn't that fun.

Silver Crusade

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

They don’t have to compete with 5e.

Wasn’t fun for you doesn’t translate into bad game that everybody hates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

They don’t have to compete with 5e.

Wasn’t fun for you doesn’t translate into bad game that everybody hates.

Yeah they do. The idea that they don't have to compete with other roleplaying games also with a fantasy setting is terminally naive. Even gamers only have so much free time, only so much disposable income, and if the people willing to GM in the area swap to 5e, thats what gets played.

Also, fun for the remnants of the playerbase who didn't abandon all hope by halfway through playtest doesn't translate into a good game thats going to experience market success.

Silver Crusade

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

No they don’t. Players and GM play games that interest them, that’s why we have things like Vampire and DND and Pathfinder and Starfinder, etc

And more baseless assumptions on your part.


Starfinder looks to have a reliable if narrow base of players. Nice to have but obviously not enough to support Paizo. Going by previous edition changes PF1 sales will decline sharply once PF2 is released, if they haven't already. PF2 is the wildcard.


Rysky wrote:

No they don’t. Players and GM play games that interest them, that’s why we have things like Vampire and DND and Pathfinder and Starfinder, etc

And more baseless assumptions on your part.

And your stance is that pf2 isn't competing with 5e for interest?

I'm interested in how you got to that baseless assumption.


I’m just not yet sure how PF2 distinguishes itself from 5E. They are both streamlined/simplified mid-fantasy RPGs, using most of the same classes and tropes. Except one of them has a much larger player base and much better brand recognition. At least PF1 had the advantage of being more complex with more options to distinguish itself. But I guess the complex player market isn’t very profitable, so Paizo is just in a bad position.

At least Starfinder serves an underserved market. There’s not a lot of call for that genre among my current groups but I’m sure there’s a hungry player base out there somewhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:

I’m just not yet sure how PF2 distinguishes itself from 5E. They are both streamlined/simplified mid-fantasy RPGs, using most of the same classes and tropes. Except one of them has a much larger player base and much better brand recognition. At least PF1 had the advantage of being more complex with more options to distinguish itself. But I guess the complex player market isn’t very profitable, so Paizo is just in a bad position.

At least Starfinder serves an underserved market. There’s not a lot of call for that genre among my current groups but I’m sure there’s a hungry player base out there somewhere.

My position is that it doesn't, which is why i think that after an initial sales bump for being the new thing its going to faceplant.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Pathfinder 2 line may ultimately fail, but they apparently didn’t have a choice but to do something. It seems that PF1 just wasn’t staying profitable. They are really in a terrible position.

And of course there will be a small number of groups that always play PF2. Heck, you can still find online groups that play 4E if you try and that game was hated by everyone I ever personally gamed with.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

5th edition is a simplified mid-fantasy RPG that serves as a wonderful introduction and starting place for people interested in joining. Pathfinder 2nd Edition is a streamlined, but much more complex, gonzo/pulp fantasy RPG that offers complicated character building and tactical combat.

You literally cannot compete with 5e. It is a truly unstoppable juggernaut, but that is okay. Pathfinder can carve out a niche of a more complicated and diverse fantasy RPG next to that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting back on topic, I can't believe we're wrapping up without a kineticist and/or alchemist option to mimic the old dragonfire shaman.

Sure, alch's have strafe bombs and breath weapon bombs, but those are limited to fire and you only have so many per day.


Albatoonoe wrote:
You literally cannot compete with 5e. It is a truly unstoppable juggernaut, but that is okay. Pathfinder can carve out a niche of a more complicated and diverse fantasy RPG next to that.

...perhaps by keeping offering 1E Bestiary Add-ons alongside their 5E Bestiary Add-ons. This ensures that their 2E offerings won't go to waste...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In a kickstarter event, not for subscription purposes.

Silver Crusade

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

No they don’t. Players and GM play games that interest them, that’s why we have things like Vampire and DND and Pathfinder and Starfinder, etc

And more baseless assumptions on your part.

And your stance is that pf2 isn't competing with 5e for interest?

I'm interested in how you got to that baseless assumption.

It’s not baseless, 5th Edition has little to no customization, 2e has plenty. People who like customization and tinkering will gravitate towards it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No they don’t. Players and GM play games that interest them, that’s why we have things like Vampire and DND and Pathfinder and Starfinder, etc

And more baseless assumptions on your part.

And your stance is that pf2 isn't competing with 5e for interest?

I'm interested in how you got to that baseless assumption.

It’s not baseless, 5th Edition has little to no customization, 2e has plenty. People who like customization and tinkering will gravitate towards it.

Also, there is just not a lot going on tactically in 5e. I felt really restrained I'm the 5e game coming from PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
In a kickstarter event, not for subscription purposes.

...which is a pity, as dual 1E / 2E AP offering would be revolutionary and super cool! (if you think of it, the stats/combat part of each AP book would be somewhat easy to change or perhaps the 1E stats could be added on a side-document as part of the PDF download i.e. interactive maps, AP book, 1E stats supplement)


Melkiador wrote:

The Pathfinder 2 line may ultimately fail, but they apparently didn’t have a choice but to do something. It seems that PF1 just wasn’t staying profitable. They are really in a terrible position.

This was the tragedy I think.... IMO the vast majority of PF1 players were hoping that PF2 was going to be basically a mass tweaking/"unchaining" of the classes that hadn't be unchained already + tidying up of any existing rule inconsistencies. The mechanics of the game would remain 90% unchanged.

Unfortunately if Paizo weren't profitable enough with PF1 the above concept would have only helped their bottom line in the short term as people would no doubt buy up the revised rule + class books. It wouldn't bring many new players/customers to the table.... ergo it wasnt worth doing.

Although Paizo is made up of RPG fans, it is at the end of the day a business. With the advent of 5E, being niche AND stony cold broke really is fairly pointless!!

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM PDK wrote:
Rysky wrote:
In a kickstarter event, not for subscription purposes.
...which is a pity, as dual 1E / 2E AP offering would be revolutionary and super cool! (if you think of it, the stats/combat part of each AP book would be somewhat easy to change or perhaps the 1E stats could be added on a side-document as part of the PDF download i.e. interactive maps, AP book, 1E stats supplement)

It would not be easy in the slightest, and making twice the mechanical content would be an obscene workload for not much extra profit.


Also there are some pretty big differences between the two games in terms of "what threats are appropriate challenges for various levels" just built into the system.

Something like Kingmaker will probably work since that's not really so much about fighting, but "unspecified Pathfinder content" most likely will not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No they don’t. Players and GM play games that interest them, that’s why we have things like Vampire and DND and Pathfinder and Starfinder, etc

And more baseless assumptions on your part.

And your stance is that pf2 isn't competing with 5e for interest?

I'm interested in how you got to that baseless assumption.

It’s not baseless, 5th Edition has little to no customization, 2e has plenty. People who like customization and tinkering will gravitate towards it.
Also, there is just not a lot going on tactically in 5e. I felt really restrained I'm the 5e game coming from PF.

From PF1 maybe, 2 is ...meh


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Rysky wrote:
In a kickstarter event, not for subscription purposes.
...which is a pity, as dual 1E / 2E AP offering would be revolutionary and super cool! (if you think of it, the stats/combat part of each AP book would be somewhat easy to change or perhaps the 1E stats could be added on a side-document as part of the PDF download i.e. interactive maps, AP book, 1E stats supplement)
It would not be easy in the slightest, and making twice the mechanical content would be an obscene workload for not much extra profit.

Risky, do you work at Paizo? you seem to have in-depth insights into their workload/practices. If so, cool, and I stand corrected. I always imagined the statting up of monsters/NPCs was a bit secondary to putting up the story and book together, especially with the pro tools kicking around like Hero Labs... (again, no snark and don't mean to offend... I was just brainstorming a potential idea in light of the Kingmaker 1E Bestiary add-on, which I think was an absolutely genius idea for us old 1E grognards! :) )


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
Risky, do you work at Paizo?

ITd also explain why they get all bound up when people express doubt that pf2 is going to be much of a success

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM PDK wrote:
Rysky wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
Rysky wrote:
In a kickstarter event, not for subscription purposes.
...which is a pity, as dual 1E / 2E AP offering would be revolutionary and super cool! (if you think of it, the stats/combat part of each AP book would be somewhat easy to change or perhaps the 1E stats could be added on a side-document as part of the PDF download i.e. interactive maps, AP book, 1E stats supplement)
It would not be easy in the slightest, and making twice the mechanical content would be an obscene workload for not much extra profit.
Risky, do you work at Paizo? you seem to have in-depth insights into their workload/practices. If so, cool, and I stand corrected. I always imagined the statting up of monsters/NPCs was a bit secondary to putting up the story and book together, especially with the pro tools kicking around like Hero Labs... (again, no snark and don't mean to offend... I was just brainstorming a potential idea in light of the Kingmaker 1E Bestiary add-on, which I think was an absolutely genius idea for us old 1E grognards! :) )

I pay attention when they and 3pp talk about their work practices. Doing the mechanics side of things is not as simple as feeding numbers into Hero Labs.

101 to 150 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.