I would have liked a difference between persistent magical bonuses (wearable items) and temporary ones. A lot of buff spells become wastes of slots/actions because they don't stack with items. (Permanency and buff spells would need to be a special case...) They could still be less useful than other actions, but still not be completely useless.
I think the last thing PF1 needs is more stacking buffs.
- Playable lizardfolks; yeah, some creatures got a free pass to become playable, but lizardfolks didn't.
- Variants for lizardfolks based on dinosaurs, such as:
* Replace the 2 Claws with an increased damage to Bite (1d4 -> 1d6)
* Replace the 2 Claws with 2 slams, like a Sauropod's feets
* Replace Bite with an increased damage to the 2 Claws (1d4 -> 1d6)
* Replace the claws and bite with Triceratops horns for a Gore
* Replace the claws and bite with a Pachycephalosaurus skull for a slam (headbutt)
* Replace the claws and bite with a tail slap (piercing for Stegosaurus, Bludgeoning for Ankylosaurus and Diplodocus)
* Replace the 2 Claws with 2 Wing buffets like a Pterosaurus, with Glide as an extra ability (no flying to avoid game break)
- Actual clarification for Slam, Gore and whatnot in monster entries; for instance, in the attack line, I would have liked to see "slam (headbutt)", "slam (tail)", "slam (fist)", "gore (horns)", "gore (spines)", etc. There were instances where players could target specific parts of a monster, so aiming to cripple a natural weapon would have been useful. Also, some bipedal monsters like the Wood Colossus and the Danava Titan have 3 slams... with some... mystery 3rd limb for the 3rd attack XD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playable in PFS or just in general? Because they did do a lizardfolk race in Advanced Race Guide. Left out the Hold Breath for some reason though.
As for the slams... Tanuki have a Slam attack but nothing in their art shows what they would slam with. Probably a subtle nod to the real world lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playable in PFS or just in general? Because they did do a lizardfolk race in Advanced Race Guide. Left out the Hold Breath for some reason though.
Huh, you're right. Oddly enough, it... never got the same "publishing treatment" as other monstrous races.
As for the slams... Tanuki have a Slam attack but nothing in their art shows what they would slam with. Probably a subtle nod to the real world lore.
Oh geez XD
Yes, I would DARE Paizo to precise which part a Tanuki uses to slam XDD
There are a lot playable races I would have liked to have seen.
Maybe if they called the weapon categories simple, average/moderate, and advanced weapons. Basically categorizing the weapons based on the skill needed to use and/or complexity/technological level.
More alternate rules would have been nice. Especially rules for replacing traits, favored class bonuses, alternate level progressions without needing certain magic items, better stat progression, unarmored options, etc.
Would have liked Fenrir and/or Cerberus as a unique CR26-30 monster.
I agree, the Nemean Lion as a monster species would have been cool.
I agree, would have liked monster class templates and variant multi-class for the remaining classes.
I wish we made it to 50 classes though 39(40 if you count the Anti-Paladin) is not bad.
Rework how multiclassing actually work... Seriously, there's almost no reason to multiclass due to how limiting you can become.
Most class features are tied to specific class levels or are tied to classes specifically. Rare were the instances where a player could take a feat to use its character level for certain class features. Also, many features just didn't synergize much.
It also leads to silly and pointless builds where a player can do ONE SPECIFIC MOVE after screwing the rest.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That we got a Pathfinder 1e 2.0 or at least cleaned up/updated rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to catch up on this thread, but have not yet had the chance to do so. So marking for interest. But one thing I want to second:
That we got a Pathfinder 1e 2.0 or at least cleaned up/updated rules.
This. What I really wanted was a Pathfinder 1.5 = D&D 3.875. And after that, Pathfinder 1.75 = D&D 3.9375. And after that, Pathfinder 1.875 = D&D 3.96875. Just never hit 2.00000 -- that's like hitting 22 in Blackjack . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While not a fan of PFS, I do think that many races should be playable to begin with...without needing some kind of boon.
I will give Paizo credit for heavily streamlining AND slimming down the rules for P2E, especially when it comes to multiclassing.
The only thing I kinda hate about P2E is how they hit the reset button again when it comes to materials. It's always bringing the same core races and classes around and ditching everything else until later, instead of adding more on top.
For instance, I wished that they held off the Advanced Player's Guide, so they could have merged it with the Core Rulebook.
I'm sorry, but for a new format that has less words and more pages, good luck explaining that the ONLY new things they could add were the Alchemist and the Goblins.
"Oh, you loved the Kineticist, Occultist and the Vigilante? Well, too bad, wait for another 10 years until they are converted back in P2E."
That's my major issue with P2E. I'm all for the new rules, but I really hate that they started over, like every other new edition. If they took P1E's first 5 years, converted it to P2E for year 1, then took P1E's last 5 years, converted it to P2E for year 2 and THEN start with new stuff, then it will be more interesting.
Right now, it's like you played a MMORPG for 10 years and you can't transfer your character for the sequel due to the lack of races and classes...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will give Paizo credit for heavily streamlining AND slimming down the rules for P2E, especially when it comes to multiclassing.
The only thing I kinda hate about P2E is how they hit the reset button again when it comes to materials. It's always bringing the same core races and classes around and ditching everything else until later, instead of adding more on top.
For instance, I wished that they held off the Advanced Player's Guide, so they could have merged it with the Core Rulebook.
I'm sorry, but for a new format that has less words and more pages, good luck explaining that the ONLY new things they could add were the Alchemist and the Goblins.
"Oh, you loved the Kineticist, Occultist and the Vigilante? Well, too bad, wait for another 10 years until they are converted back in P2E."
That's my major issue with P2E. I'm all for the new rules, but I really hate that they started over, like every other new edition. If they took P1E's first 5 years, converted it to P2E for year 1, then took P1E's last 5 years, converted it to P2E for year 2 and THEN start with new stuff, then it will be more interesting.
Right now, it's like you played a MMORPG for 10 years and you can't transfer your character for the sequel due to the lack of races and classes...
Sounds like they need a conversion guide like I vaguely recall from one of the game versions where you could just go X becomes Y in the new system.
Sounds like they need a conversion guide like I vaguely recall from one of the game versions where you could just go X becomes Y in the new system.I will give Paizo credit for heavily streamlining AND slimming down the rules for P2E, especially when it comes to multiclassing.
The only thing I kinda hate about P2E is how they hit the reset button again when it comes to materials. It's always bringing the same core races and classes around and ditching everything else until later, instead of adding more on top.
For instance, I wished that they held off the Advanced Player's Guide, so they could have merged it with the Core Rulebook.
I'm sorry, but for a new format that has less words and more pages, good luck explaining that the ONLY new things they could add were the Alchemist and the Goblins.
"Oh, you loved the Kineticist, Occultist and the Vigilante? Well, too bad, wait for another 10 years until they are converted back in P2E."
That's my major issue with P2E. I'm all for the new rules, but I really hate that they started over, like every other new edition. If they took P1E's first 5 years, converted it to P2E for year 1, then took P1E's last 5 years, converted it to P2E for year 2 and THEN start with new stuff, then it will be more interesting.
Right now, it's like you played a MMORPG for 10 years and you can't transfer your character for the sequel due to the lack of races and classes...
They have a guide, but a few classes were considered "unusable" because they couldn't be converted into P2E, like the Occultist.
Recently, P2E runs playtests for the Magus, the Summoner, the Gunslinger... and the Inventor, which is a brand new class.
^An updated conversion guide (including the stuff released since the original conversion guide) would be nice. Although presumably it would have to be updated again real soon when the production Magus and Summoner come out.
^An updated conversion guide (including the stuff released since the original conversion guide) would be nice. Although presumably it would have to be updated again real soon when the production Magus and Summoner come out.
Well, if they go on to convert every class, a guide won't be necessary :P
One thing I would have loved to get... unless you can ALREADY do it in P1E... is to give a Black Blade the same properties as an Intelligent Item.
A Black Blade has mental ability scores and an ego... so... what prevents it from developping senses or powers (including the 30 ft. fly speed)?
The fly speed would be swell, because with it, you could have the Sword familiar from Castlevania ;)
^An updated conversion guide (including the stuff released since the original conversion guide) would be nice. Although presumably it would have to be updated again real soon when the production Magus and Summoner come out.
Well, if they go on to convert every class, a guide won't be necessary :P
One thing I would have loved to get... unless you can ALREADY do it in P1E... is to give a Black Blade the same properties as an Intelligent Item.
A Black Blade has mental ability scores and an ego... so... what prevents it from developping senses or powers (including the 30 ft. fly speed)?
The fly speed would be swell, because with it, you could have the Sword familiar from Castlevania ;)
The faq is just about magic weapon enhancements/properties. So pay gold to have it added since "Intelligent Item Powers" doesn't have anything to do with that.
The faq is just about magic weapon enhancements/properties. So pay gold to have it added since "Intelligent Item Powers" doesn't have anything to do with that.^An updated conversion guide (including the stuff released since the original conversion guide) would be nice. Although presumably it would have to be updated again real soon when the production Magus and Summoner come out.
Well, if they go on to convert every class, a guide won't be necessary :P
One thing I would have loved to get... unless you can ALREADY do it in P1E... is to give a Black Blade the same properties as an Intelligent Item.
A Black Blade has mental ability scores and an ego... so... what prevents it from developping senses or powers (including the 30 ft. fly speed)?
The fly speed would be swell, because with it, you could have the Sword familiar from Castlevania ;)
But is... kinda already an Intelligent Item... Can you really add these things to a "partial" Intelligent Item?
Some special attacks with weapons would have been awesome, stuff like firing an arrow that becomes hundreds of arrows(20' radius, 1d6/level ref half), energy blast from your sword(line or cone effect), striking the ground with your fist that does damage and knocks enemies prone(line or 20' centered on you), throwing multiple daggers in a cone effect, magical barrier breaking strike, "heat seeking" ranged weapon, spell deflection, etc. Of course there would be a limit on the number of uses like x/day, x/hour, or maybe using a MP type mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish Paizo had an edition neutral line for campaign setting books. Basically books focused on setting information and would not have any game rules so any edition could use them equally. Also no game rules would mean more room for campaign setting information.
Finally . . . all caught up!
I have a bunch of stuff I want to say, but not enough time right now, so I'll just leave the thought that's quickest: Where's our Harrowed Medium like the original Occult Adventures Playtest promised? Nothing like this even seems to be on the horizon even in actual Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
Yeah, forgot about the Harrowed medium, would have been cool to get that even if it filled an entire softcover book all it's own.
I am fine with guns being touch attacks at close range(I think heavy crossbows should be as well). I do think that guns should not get better then a x2 crit. Also I think non-siege ranged weapons should do less damage against creatures that are such a massive size like kaiju.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep hearing that you don't get much by going more than 5 levels of Gunslinger (sometimes the same for Swashbuckler, but at least that gets you a noticeable if not great amount of additional Precision Damage). And suddenly it clicked: Gunslinger should have been a 5 level Prestige Class -- and Pathfinder 2nd Edition's Gunslinger should be an archetype. (And VMC Gunslinger should be one of those bad dreams that makes absolutely no sense.)
A magic culverin... that can double as a greatclub or tetsubo... and/or that has an immovable rod attached to it so you don't need a rest/stand to fire it.
The Gun Tank archetype (Gunslinger) having a deed that negates recoil from culverins and hackbuts.
I liked Words of Power, having used them once or twice. I would've liked even a web enhancement for them, and hope they'll get put back in to 2E (though I doubt it'll happen).
Given that Ultimate Magic cut some stuff that we never got back or improved further in later books, I wouldn't hold my breath...
So what stuff was cut from Ultimate Magic?
Never was a fan of words of power but I do think it needed more love.
Large races...
In Pathfinder, we have the Trox... that's it... with no other Large-sized race...
Granted, you can slap the Large racial trait (for 7 RP) on any existing race to get it, such as a Large human being a half-giant, we didn't get other Large races.
I don't know if it was due to the increase damage... or inconvenience to not fit in tight spaces. By comparison, Starfinder is loaded with Large alien races.
At least we have a large size playable race, but their no tiny size playable races.
Large races...
In Pathfinder, we have the Trox... that's it... with no other Large-sized race...
Granted, you can slap the Large racial trait (for 7 RP) on any existing race to get it, such as a Large human being a half-giant, we didn't get other Large races.
I don't know if it was due to the increase damage... or inconvenience to not fit in tight spaces. By comparison, Starfinder is loaded with Large alien races.
Centaurs. Though the general deficit compared to Starfinder is probably because melee is the norm in PF (and large size helps there) and not in SF.
^"omething like starfinder where you learn spell X and can change its nature by choosing the level you cast it at" is actually supported in Pathfinder 1st Edition, just only actually in use in a subset of the Occult casters (+ Psychic Bloodline Sorcerer).
|
|
^"omething like starfinder where you learn spell X and can change its nature by choosing the level you cast it at" is actually supported in Pathfinder 1st Edition, just only actually in use in a subset of the Occult casters (+ Psychic Bloodline Sorcerer).
Ah never really looked at Occult, still its not a blanket rule you can apply across all spells I assume.
Ah never really looked at Occult, still its not a blanket rule you can apply across all spells I assume.^"omething like starfinder where you learn spell X and can change its nature by choosing the level you cast it at" is actually supported in Pathfinder 1st Edition, just only actually in use in a subset of the Occult casters (+ Psychic Bloodline Sorcerer).
Not a blanket rule, but it would be real easy to apply to non-Occult casters. (Nevertheless, I'll go ahead and second that I wish that they had done so.)
+1 on that. Of course, the problem is that D&D 3.x messed this up in the first place. In AD&D 1.x, Clerics had a distorted 7/9 spellcasting progression and were d6 and more or less 3/4 BAB, with levels 1 through 6 becoming available every 2 levels but then spell level 7 appearing WAY late (19th level); AD&D 1.x just didn't have a 9/9 divine caster at all. (Although then the AD&D 1.x Druid was really weird.) This should have been cleaned up into a d8, 3/4 BAB, nominally 6/9 spellcaster with the addition of 7th level spells at . . . 19th level (where a nominal 9/9 caster would get 10th level spells(*) if you extended the progression the way Pathfinder 2nd Edition does, although it does so in a weird way).
(*)For the most part, no need to invent new spells -- just decompress the upper level spells to balance them . . . which again is what Pathfinder 2nd Edition sort of does, although it does it weirdly, probably because just going to 10th level isn't really enough decompression if you want to keep the D&D3.x/PF1 spell effects while balancing their power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish we got a priest class(d6, no armor, etc.) as well.
I like how the psychic spells had spells that if you knew a higher level version, you can cast any of the spells of a lower level. I wish they did that with the summon monster and summon nature's ally spells.
Options to apply your character level to some class features instead of just your class levels.