Farewell First Edition! Things you loved, wanted, hated and will miss.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Of the absolute minuscule time I got to be an actual player, the Bladebound Magus was what I fell head over heels for. I absolutely loved that class.


I really wanted a Worldscape sourcebook. I thought the concepts in that Comic were really cool and could have made for a great alternate Setting for Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Loved: All of it.

Wanted: Everything that was made by Paizo but for D&D 3.5 to officially be remade in Pathfinder.

Hated: Can’t hate perfection.

Miss: New content.

Shadow Lodge

Wanted: Spontaneous casting druid
Hated: The skill system. Skills are generally invest max ranks or don't bother causing huge disparity between player's skill checks. This makes setting a DC for any skill check a g!% d#+n nightmare, it'll either be a challenge for 1 PC and impossible for everyone else, or a cake walk for 1 PC and a challenge for everyone else.


Loved: The rework of most Core classes. The emphasis on archetypes over prestige classes which become only relevant at level 6+ anyway. Among the Paizo classes I preferred oracle, witch, arcanist, brawler, kineticist and psychic - clear theme, clear role and well-rounded options.

Wanted: More balancing measures which are NOT restricted to nerfs. Maybe if you nerf one thing, improve a weak one to compensate. I know this is not a computer game with automatic patches, but Unchained showed that it can work to some extend.

Hated: The action system. Actually I was indifferent first, but the more I deal with it, the more I loathe the overly complex ruleset.

Will Miss: Multiclassing as in 3E? Not sure what route they go in PF2.


Loved: The flexibility of the system and loose math, leading to a low skill floor and high skill ceiling that rewarded system mastery.

Wanted: Harrowed Medium. A better Shifter class.

Hated: Irrational prerequisites, feat taxes, and the like.

Will Miss: I don't expect to be done with 1st edition for quite a while due to the backlog of content, but the math of 2nd looks considerably tighter and I'm expecting a fair bit of homogenization as a result.


Skerek wrote:

Wanted: Spontaneous casting druid

Hated: The skill system. Skills are generally invest max ranks or don't bother causing huge disparity between player's skill checks. This makes setting a DC for any skill check a g&& d~*n nightmare, it'll either be a challenge for 1 PC and impossible for everyone else, or a cake walk for 1 PC and a challenge for everyone else.

I liked this is makes for a fun character moment when one character gets to show off

It shows how different a characters life is or was when a wizard gets to score a massive knowledge bonus no other character ever heard of. The bard manages to talk the party out of something when everyone else they’re screwed. When the Druid sees straight through a lie everyone else buys hook line and sinker.

Why shouldn’t one character be able to do something others can’t? That’s the fun of it.

Also when setting skill checks I would always base them on verisimilitude and how hard it makes sense for something to be in world. Not how good at something a player is.

The only exception being skill challenges in dungeons which obviously need to be relatively possible for the players if I expect them to do that.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Loved: The customization; the crunch; a sense that nearly any hairbrained concept was in fact doable.

Wanted: Better Martial support, Actual Psionic casting, the promised end to feat taxes.

Hated: Paizo's "playtest" advertising and refusal to listen to any of the feedback of those so called playtests. the errata that always broke more than it fixed. the lack of understanding that if a character can't execute the concept well, people won't play that concept. The fact Feat Taxes got WORSE. Being forced to rebuild 2-3 of my society characters every errata drop.

Will miss: the sensibly laid out rules. It shouldn't take me 3 passes to figure out quick alchemy is part of the alchemy class feature.


9mm wrote:
Paizo's "playtest" advertising and refusal to listen to any of the feedback of those so called playtests

This always feels a little pretentious when I read it. That Paizo didn't adopt the fix you thought was a great idea so clearly the whole thing was a sham, nevermind the many things that do always change from playtest to launch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny thing, the very first post I made on this site was reflected in the ACG. Feedback happens.


avr wrote:
Funny thing, the very first post I made on this site was reflected in the ACG. Feedback happens.

Pretty sure you’re just the deity of getting companies to listen to their fans. So I’m gonna start worshipping you now.


Smurfs?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:
Smurfs?

What about them?

Oh no.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
9mm wrote:
Paizo's "playtest" advertising and refusal to listen to any of the feedback of those so called playtests
This always feels a little pretentious when I read it. That Paizo didn't adopt the fix you thought was a great idea so clearly the whole thing was a sham, nevermind the many things that do always change from playtest to launch.

While I think 9mm grossly overstated things it certainly is pretty clear that Paizo's record in actually responding to playtest commentary was spotty. There absolutely were times when playtesters were collectively pretty clear that something needed change and Paizo just ignored that feedback.


pauljathome wrote:
swoosh wrote:
9mm wrote:
Paizo's "playtest" advertising and refusal to listen to any of the feedback of those so called playtests
This always feels a little pretentious when I read it. That Paizo didn't adopt the fix you thought was a great idea so clearly the whole thing was a sham, nevermind the many things that do always change from playtest to launch.
While I think 9mm grossly overstated things it certainly is pretty clear that Paizo's record in actually responding to playtest commentary was spotty. There absolutely were times when playtesters were collectively pretty clear that something needed change and Paizo just ignored that feedback.

They did fix the Vigilante after playtesting, but the Shifter got screwed big time...

Yes, they have fixed a few things, but the Shifter... is still lacking some features that kinda would give it more flavor:
- It currently can merge Minor Aspects, but not Major Aspects... y'know, like a chimera.
- Its own Wild Shape doesn't increase to Beast Shape III and IV.
- It cannot combine Wild Shaping and Aspects. It feels redudant to have two class features that look similar and cannot be use together.
- There is no option to add more natural attacks.
- Shifter's Fury doesn't allow the old Claw/Claw/Bite combo as an alternate option.

Right now, the Druid is a better natural weapon user than the Shifter :S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see Paizo have finally got a 'caster cleric' (Cloistered Cleric) in the latest tweaking of cleric in PF2

And to think it only took 11 years of people telling them on forums, homebrews and 3PP versions for them to get the message...lol

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And yet I was still wading into melee with Kyra the other night.


doc roc wrote:

I see Paizo have finally got a 'caster cleric' (Cloistered Cleric) in the latest tweaking of cleric in PF2

And to think it only took 11 years of people telling them on forums, homebrews and 3PP versions for them to get the message...lol

Isn't Caster Cleric the default of Cleric? Yeah they can support or smash face but Cleric being high on the tier list isn't due to martial power. On that note;

Loved: All the numbers. All the odd ways you could find to boost stuff or cover weaknesses. There was a lot of odd items and feats you could find if you dug deep.

Wanted: Better Animal Companion support. I'm not asking it to be on the level of Summoner's pet but bring them up at least so it's worth taking cause most were gimmick builds or abused some rule.

Hated: The expected 'solved' math and tier list that both the community and even the devs seemed to follow. Which is probably going to happen again in a few years but what can you do?

Will miss: Alchemist. I don't like the new walking supply shed they made it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loved: Multiclassing, and I mean putting 2 classes together for around 10 lvls each, and figuring out the proper balancing point. Do I want this lvl 13 ability? Do I want to give up this level 9 ability for it? That's how I built my characters. Absolutely Loved building them out to lvl 20 level by level whether I was playing a campaign with them or not, it always felt amazing...

Wanted: More

Hated: That we never got the Harrowed Medium... It's the same feeling that I got when David Hill left as lead designer of Changeling 2e over problems with the New White Wolf, and over time learned that we were getting Less than his 100 Kiths in the Core Rules... Then it came out and we got 12 and told here's how you make your own have fun... That's how having been there for the playtesting of the Original, the Harrowed Medium felt after getting what we got in the actual rulebook... Only WORSE because at least Onyx Path is coming out with Kith and Kin which will have more Kiths, whereas We Will NEVER get the Harrowed Medium... It is Gone FORever, because A) they've said as much and B) 1E is dead(as in not growing)..........

Will Miss: Getting new Official Pathfinder 1E books and options...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
blahpers wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Player side, I want the game to flow faster without tripping over it's own rules.

DM side, I want the game to prep faster without tripping over it's own rules.
All without any loss of versatility in being able to tell the stories we want to tell!
And a pony!

That combo is easy enough - I wrote a ruleset that does those things (based on the my little pony rpg).

The downside is, it doesn't do tactical combat, which is one of the things I like about PF1.

You might like Ponyfinder!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:
You might like Ponyfinder!

Wait, Ponyfinder is a thing people are selling, and not an April Fools?

I don't know what's going on any more.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttt.... ponies!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ponyfinder is a real thing. Been around for years.

It's even on Amazon, so you know it's legit. : )


Yeah. They had to file off all the serial numbers, but it's there, and… well, pretty decent for 3pp stuff?


Just gonna throw these out there, in case these might be introduced/added in 2E. here are things I would have liked to see.

- Racial orc axes and falchions. I keep questioning why the Butchering Axe wasn't labelled as a racial weapon.

- "Better" racial weapons for dwarvens and elves. A 1d10 one-handed dwarven hammer and an 1d10 elven longsword/1d8 elven rapier would have been nice to get. Yes, we have the Ram and Sphinx Hammers, but one is a reskinned warhammer and the other a weaker earth breaker.

- Racial elven bows. That one is weird... Shouldn't elves have the "better" bows?

- A gauntlet/glove enhancement that allows you to bestow specific enhancements to thrown weapon, such as a +1 flaming "slinging" gauntlet that turns daggers into +1 flaming daggers when thrown.

- A wand bracer, which can get you to carry a number of wands, ready to be used all the time. That could be used for rods as well.

- A way to restore a staff via a feat, like spending a 5th-level spell recharges 5 charges. Same with wands.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I never liked prestige classes, myself. I greatly prefer the archetypes that Paizo introduced.

I feel like there's a niche for Prestige Classes for special things one has to *earn* and can't just 'start at 1st level,' but generally prefer Archetypes to Prestige Classes.

That said, I preferred Substitution levels, from the 3.X Unearthed Arcana, better than either, and being able to pick and choose this or that ability, swapping it out for the class ability of a certain level, but not be stuck with a bunch of other stuff, or losing a bunch of other class desirable features for (often highly specific) Archetype stuff.

The vast majority of Archetypes seem utterly unattractive to me, particularly as someone who plays a lot of Clerics and Druids, who don't have a bunch of Class abilities I'm itching to get rid of in exchange for, all too often, *very* situational abilities that, IMO, aren't nearly as useful.


Technically PF1E isn't quite finished. There's still the Kingmaker game's Kickstarter bonus module that, at last report, was being playtested.


Is this for the video game? Is it integrated into the video game, or a standalone softcover module?


Liked: Simple unified mechanics.

Wanted: Feat-less variant

Hated: Excessive customization

Will Miss: Nowt (still playing)

Dark Archive

Liked: Content.

Wanted: Game to break less easily whether on purpose or accident. Oh and campaign setting books for all nations that didn't have time to get those. More demigod statblocks

Hated: Multiclassing(it triggers my obsessive side because it means character won't ever get all of their single class' class features :p Plus multiclassing's synergies were one of things that easily broke stuff, along with higher level casters)

Will Miss: Umm, I'm going to play or run both editions so not really anything? I'm satisfied with having definite "end point" for content so I don't feel like I need to wait another few years just in case I would get content like official stats for demon lord I think would make for cool BBEG for homebrew and know I'm free to homebrew them instead.


@J.A.
As far as I know it's to be a PDF release. Maybe one of the higher tiers got a physical copy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Liked: Plenty.

Wanted: Some form of bard that didn't cast spells. Doesn't look like I'll be getting one in PF2, since they're 9-level Occult casters now...

Hated: Fiddling with skill ranks, the difficulty of getting non-spellcasting options, and the essential pointlessness of non-casters by fairly early levels.

Will Miss: I still have all of my stuff, so... not much. I suppose any classes I particularly liked that end up not making the jump might be mourned. (The ACG classes being the most likely casualties here)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Wanted: Some form of bard that didn't cast spells. Doesn't look like I'll be getting one in PF2, since they're 9-level Occult casters now...

What.

I know I said I'd reserve judgment until I actually read the final rules, but the more I learn, the less inclined I am to take the time to read them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards are 9th level casters? I'm in!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
I know I said I'd reserve judgment until I actually read the final rules, but the more I learn, the less inclined I am to take the time to read them.

I've taken three multi-hour dives into them and I can't get past the pointless complexity of skill feats and my character's inability to jump more than three feet in the air. Also the part where all the classes available are basically already available in 5th ed, which is easier.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 opinion:
PF2 is just...dull. It's a solid if slow wargame and it has much better balance than PF1, but it's not good for out of combat stuff and there's nothing that grabs my interest. Nothing quirky and fun. Basically it's a game that dump-statted Charisma, and didn't put a lot into Dex either.

Full casters in PF2 are not like full casters in PF1, and the fact the bard gets spells up to max level doesn't mean it can do much with them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Right now, the Druid is a better natural weapon user than the Shifter :S

They took a class whose primary focus is 9 level spellcasting, and who has an animal companion and shapeshifting as secondary abilities.

They took a class with Full BAB and shapeshifting as its primary focuses, with no spellcasting and no animal companion.

And they decided that what they needed to do to balance these classes was to nerf the shapeshifting abilities of the second class, the one for whom shapeshifting was, again, their primary focus.

God bless them. I love so much of their work, but their ideas about how classes that don't cast spells should compare to classes that do are just incomprhensible.


FaerieGodfather wrote:
God bless them. I love so much of their work, but their ideas about how classes that don't cast spells should compare to classes that do are just incomprhensible.

Here's their mea culpa, for all it's worth at this point, i.e. for those who are still playing 1st edition and need to play in hard mode for some reason...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gotta say I like that better than the vanilla Shifter.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Gotta say I like that better than the vanilla Shifter.

Agreed. This one is not only playable, but fun to play due to full range of wildshaping. I still don't understand why you wouldn't just go through all the dungeons in wildshape... the 'humanoid clawed' regular shape would probably be outdone by wildshape every time... Just pump up STR and go bear, dire tiger, etc.

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Farewell First Edition! Things you loved, wanted, hated and will miss. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.