Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

An AP dealing with a certain gold dragon on a certain island;) A very dragon focused AP in general would have been nice.

You're just in luck, the first PF2 AP, Age of Ashes is *exactly* that.

Glad they got around to it, sad its not in 1E. Oh well.

Paizo Employee

SheepishEidolon wrote:


2) I have a much harder time to find discussions about it, to understand the actual power level, the real price paid and connections to other options. For many Paizo options, you can find at least some discussion here - especially if they are powerful. For 3pp you will usually have to rely completely on your own judgment - which can be done, but means more effort for worse results.

This is where reviews are invaluable. Some reviewers, like Endzeitgeist, even have Patreons where you can ask them to prioritize reviewing a product if they haven't already.

One of the things I've done when my players asked to use a 3pp option I wasn't familiar with is to have them find me a detailed review of the product. If they can't find one, it goes on the "For Consideration" pile until I have time to read through it. I have a pretty robust collection of 3pp materials these days and am familiar with even more so this doesn't come up as often anymore, but it was a solid system for a good decade.


Horse types. There's only three "normal" horse types and heavy horse is strictly better than light horse after the (negligible by level 3 if not 2) cost. If most higher level adventurers have them, it should be expanded to types like Courser (higher speed, lower strength) and pack horse (higher strength, lower speed)


Campaign setting books for Kyonin, The Five Kings Mountains, Realm of The Mammoth Lords, and other places in the Inner Sea that hasn't been done.

A hardcover campaign setting book for a Golarion World Guide. One would have been nice to cover all the places outside of the Inner Sea. Though a book for each continent would have been really awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That elemental kept it's own creature type.

Vermin was a subtype of animal.

That there was a spirit subtype.

There was a hag subtype and that hags were fey.

Also wish centuars, willow-wisp, merfolk and yuki-onna(CN) were fey.

No monstrous humanoid type, though maybe as a (monstrous)subtype.

Nagas were magical beast.

A cursed creature subtype.

Oni were humanoids with the oni, spirit, and based creature subtypes.

Rakshasa were humanoid maybe with the spirit subtype as well.

Was never a fan of the outsider type but I could see it being broken up into groups based on alignment like Celestial(G), Fiend(E), Aeon(N or LN), Protean(CN), etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

Campaign setting books for Kyonin, The Five Kings Mountains, Realm of The Mammoth Lords, and other places in the Inner Sea that hasn't been done.

A hardcover campaign setting book for a Golarion World Guide. One would have been nice to cover all the places outside of the Inner Sea. Though a book for each continent would have been really awesome.

Heck, even in 2E we still can't get just a world map!

"So you're from a nation just on the eastern/southern edge of the Inner Sea map?"

"Yep."

"So you WOULD be casually familiar with the nation just east/south of you?"

"One would think so."

"So do you?"

"Hell no. Ask me about the distant planets in our solar system or otherworldly planes and I can tell you something. The lands twenty miles thataway? Who knows?"


Yeah, still no Golarion world map.

More psychic classes and archetypes like Esper, Telepath, Empath, Clairvoyant, Swami/Yogi, Fakir, Seer, Augurer, Psychic Warrior, etc.


I would have loved to see strength rated crossbows.

I house ruled that they are available.
+1 STR = +2 Damage.
+2 STR = +4 Damage
+3 STR = +6 Damage
+4 STR = +8 Damage
+5 STR = +10 Damage.
(max was +5)
With the crossbows slow rate of fire, I found that this enhances crossbows, and it suits dwarves a bit more than them using bows.


Gorbacz wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

An AP dealing with a certain gold dragon on a certain island;) A very dragon focused AP in general would have been nice.

You're just in luck, the first PF2 AP, Age of Ashes is *exactly* that.

I know you're just here to troll and make a nuisance of yourself as usual (I have no issue with this), but is Age of Ashes any good? Obviously a subjective question, but I'll be happy with a subjective answer.

I'm thinking about converting 2e campaigns back to 1e.


@Rysky: Yes, there are Paizo options which are... questionable. But they are rare, personally I can think of only two more offenders among the feats right now.

About the potential: Any new option has the chance / risk (depending on view) to be better than anything that was available before. If an ambitious player digs through 3pp, they can come up with a more powerful PC afterwards. If a second, less ambitious player skips 3pp, their PC will stay at the same power level as before. So overall, the gap between both PCs will increase, maybe to the point where the ambitious player considers the other PC a burden and where the less ambitious player is frustrated because their PC is outclassed most of the time.

@Dale McCoy Jr: Hrm, looking into 3p monsters and modules first sounds like a plan. I will have a closer look at the book bundle I got from d20PFSRD a while ago.

Also @Ssalarn: Endzeitgeist's reviews are helpful, yes, especially thanks to their level of detail.


Simplify traits.


Simplify traits? Please be more precise.

A crossbow with it's own "Str score" to determine it's damage would be interesting. Also I wish heavy crossbows bypassed armor/natural armor at close range like guns.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
SheepishEidolon wrote:
About the potential: Any new option has the chance / risk (depending on view) to be better than anything that was available before. If an ambitious player digs through 3pp, they can come up with a more powerful PC afterwards. If a second, less ambitious player skips 3pp, their PC will stay at the same power level as before. So overall, the gap between both PCs will increase, maybe to the point where the ambitious player considers the other PC a burden and where the less ambitious player is frustrated because their PC is outclassed most of the time.

That has nothing to do with 3pp.

The same applies if a more "ambitious" player looks through all the Paizo options while another simply uses the core rulebook.


Rysky wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:
About the potential: Any new option has the chance / risk (depending on view) to be better than anything that was available before. If an ambitious player digs through 3pp, they can come up with a more powerful PC afterwards. If a second, less ambitious player skips 3pp, their PC will stay at the same power level as before. So overall, the gap between both PCs will increase, maybe to the point where the ambitious player considers the other PC a burden and where the less ambitious player is frustrated because their PC is outclassed most of the time.

That has nothing to do with 3pp.

The same applies if a more "ambitious" player looks through all the Paizo options while another simply uses the core rulebook.

Not quite. It's not just a matter of quality control (which is an issue) or inconsistent writer intent (also an issue), but a larger pool of content in general to draw from. That's not just more materials for the player to try and find exploits in (things never intended to be paired but together creating broken combos) but also homework for the GM.

There's good 3pp materials out there, and as a GM I use and permit them sparingly.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Artofregicide wrote:
Rysky wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:
About the potential: Any new option has the chance / risk (depending on view) to be better than anything that was available before. If an ambitious player digs through 3pp, they can come up with a more powerful PC afterwards. If a second, less ambitious player skips 3pp, their PC will stay at the same power level as before. So overall, the gap between both PCs will increase, maybe to the point where the ambitious player considers the other PC a burden and where the less ambitious player is frustrated because their PC is outclassed most of the time.

That has nothing to do with 3pp.

The same applies if a more "ambitious" player looks through all the Paizo options while another simply uses the core rulebook.

Not quite. It's not just a matter of quality control (which is an issue) or inconsistent writer intent (also an issue), but a larger pool of content in general to draw from. That's not just more materials for the player to try and find exploits in (things never intended to be paired but together creating broken combos) but also homework for the GM.

There's good 3pp materials out there, and as a GM I use and permit them sparingly.

I don't really see where you're arguing with my point that much.

The more books you use in your character the more likely they are to be stronger. Whether the books are 3pp or Paizo are irrelevant in this instance.


The combos don't have to be exploits. I mean, take a magus, add one of the traits which reduce metamagic costs on a spell and you have something more powerful than the base magus. Nothing unexpected, nothing broken, nothing cunning or tricky, just a bit more power. Calling everything which increases power an exploit devalues the term.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Rysky wrote:
The more books you use in your character the more likely they are to be stronger. Whether the books are 3pp or Paizo are irrelevant in this instance.

I mean, I side-step the issue by simply providing (at some extensive work on my part) a complete list of available options, so everyone is picking, say, feats from the same master list and not out of one or more books.

The list is compiled from whatever sources I opt to allow, but is never "everything that is published," - nor is core exempt from exclusion if I decide something isn't right. My background was Rolemaster before D&D (AD&D was a distant forth RPG) and RM contains lots of mutally exclusive stuff that trained me to not to treat a rulebook as a single, discrete option to allow or disallow, and to basically evaluate the content independently. (Regardless of whose party wrote it.)

Though I suppose it helps I have an enviroment where we as players (and double-especially me as DM) make it a point so that the players that are not as mechanically inclined (either in ability or enthusiasm) are encouraged to ask for and recieve suggestions from Them As Are.


I would have been more interested in rules fixes for somethings that would seem to have simple solutions ie: this or that, yes or no etc.

A lot of other clean up of rules for combat, items and classes etc.

Speaking of classes fix the two archetypes that need the most fixing.

Brute

Rageshaper

As for 3rd party I've never had much interest. DM has specifically said no 3pp.

I have like one 3pp I used for when I was DMing. It's also been extremely difficult to get 3pp from my local stores.

If you like 3pp great...if you don't great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apologies for not reading the whole thread, but I'm kind of bored and just drank caffeine.

1) A revamped racial stat system. The majority of the time I don't find worth it to use, or make stats for, races when I find it just as interesting to slap Low-light or Darkvision on a Human, maybe adjust the size, and call it a day. I don't know what it would look like.

2) Dancer: hybrid Bard/Monk.

3) Savage Species 2.0

4) Pathfinder 1.5e


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
Rysky wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:
About the potential: Any new option has the chance / risk (depending on view) to be better than anything that was available before. If an ambitious player digs through 3pp, they can come up with a more powerful PC afterwards. If a second, less ambitious player skips 3pp, their PC will stay at the same power level as before. So overall, the gap between both PCs will increase, maybe to the point where the ambitious player considers the other PC a burden and where the less ambitious player is frustrated because their PC is outclassed most of the time.

That has nothing to do with 3pp.

The same applies if a more "ambitious" player looks through all the Paizo options while another simply uses the core rulebook.

Not quite. It's not just a matter of quality control (which is an issue) or inconsistent writer intent (also an issue), but a larger pool of content in general to draw from. That's not just more materials for the player to try and find exploits in (things never intended to be paired but together creating broken combos) but also homework for the GM.

There's good 3pp materials out there, and as a GM I use and permit them sparingly.

I don't really see where you're arguing with my point that much.

The more books you use in your character the more likely they are to be stronger. Whether the books are 3pp or Paizo are irrelevant in this instance.

That's correct, I'm not arguing with your point all that much. We're mostly agreeing, with a few specific differences as mentioned in my above post ;)

Also, you're right about it not mattering whether they're Paizo or 3pp. It's more an issue of which 3pp.


+1 for Savage Species 2.0. I always liked that book, would've really liked a Pathfinder update.


5) A version of Automatic Bonus Progression that covered all magic items, not just pluses. Like, go through and tell me what math changes if I can't take away a PC's potions or scrolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Optional rules for much better stat growth as you level.

Silvercatmoonpaw, I have also mention a Dancer class(bard/monk).

Lemartes, just the Rageshifter?! They would have to fix most of the other Shifter archetypes as well. Also while they did some work on fixing the Shifter, it could have used more work. I agree about the Brute archetype.

A Pathfinder version of Savage species would be interesting.


They have the break dancer from Strange Magic.


Dragon78 wrote:
Silvercatmoonpaw, I have also mention a Dancer class(bard/monk).

That may have been where I got the idea from.


What exactly would a bard/monk do?

It's hard to imagine two classes that have less in common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
J. A. wrote:

What exactly would a bard/monk do?

It's hard to imagine two classes that have less in common.

Specialize in capoeira and probably act similar to a sensei monk with some spells.


Dragon78 wrote:
A Pathfinder version of Savage species would be interesting.

Oh geez no... That book was just horrible... The entire Level Adjustment rule was horrible. I tried a campaign using races from that book and it was complicated to no end.

You had to double check the race's HD, the LA AND the class levels to see if requirements were met.


JiCi wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
A Pathfinder version of Savage species would be interesting.

Oh geez no... That book was just horrible... The entire Level Adjustment rule was horrible. I tried a campaign using races from that book and it was complicated to no end.

You had to double check the race's HD, the LA AND the class levels to see if requirements were met.

Oh yeah: the original was horrible, rule-wise. But I still want something that lets me break down monster stats into something PC-worthy. Some 3rd-parties have done work toward that area (Dreamscarred tried a few, then stopped; Rite Publishing's done some bang-up products, but they go one monster at a time).


JiCi, I didn't say it had to be exactly like Savage Species but making 0HD versions of lizardfolk, minotaur, nixie, centuar, satyr, medusa, dragons, giants, some magical beast, etc. Even if they are toned down versions of those creatures that would have been cool. Yeah, I know some of those were done in Advanced Races Guide.

Also would have liked more types of Griffons such a bigger more powerful ones with wind based spell powers/abilities and a smaller species with human Int and maybe as a 0HD race as well.


J. A. wrote:
+1 for Savage Species 2.0. I always liked that book, would've really liked a Pathfinder update.

Dreamscarred Press essentially accomplished this with their Monster Classes. I've not delved deeply into the numbers, but they seem pretty true to the Savage Species philosophy.


BV210 wrote:
J. A. wrote:
+1 for Savage Species 2.0. I always liked that book, would've really liked a Pathfinder update.
Dreamscarred Press essentially accomplished this with their Monster Classes. I've not delved deeply into the numbers, but they seem pretty true to the Savage Species philosophy.

I know, and it's a nice start. But I wish they'd continued or put out a compilation book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think we can all agree that Savage Species was better in concept than execution. And probably most of us would agree a Pathfinder version would be much better in all respects.

I agree with Dragon78 that a playable lizardfolk, centaur and satyr would be great. A playable aranea would also be cool, since they're able to hide among humanoids a little easier than most of the other monsters mentioned.


Dragon78 wrote:
Lemartes, just the Rageshifter?! They would have to fix most of the other Shifter archetypes as well. Also while they did some work on fixing the Shifter, it could have used more work. I agree about the Brute archetype.

Well that was the only one I was interested in. Not really interested in the Shifter otherwise.

Dark Archive

J. A. wrote:
I agree with Dragon78 that a playable lizardfolk, centaur and satyr would be great. A playable aranea would also be cool, since they're able to hide among humanoids a little easier than most of the other monsters mentioned.

I wonder if the aranea and the anadi are going to get folded into one race, with anadi just being 'the new name' or another name, for the same people.

But yeah, 0 HD playable gnolls and lizardfolk have long been a wish of mine, and extending that to races like the centaur and satyr could be fun.


I feel like there's a ton of quality 3pp content that I'd need to get through before wondering about stuff that Paizo should have published, but a 2e to 1e conversation guide would have been nice. I guess we'll have to make our own.


Re: Savage Species - I never even considered using the monster level system, but the templates just plain rocked. I love templates, and those were damn useful. More, please?


EldonGuyre wrote:
Re: Savage Species - I never even considered using the monster level system, but the templates just plain rocked. I love templates, and those were damn useful. More, please?

Yeah, Savage Species wasn't only about playing monsters, and the other stuff is also worth consideration. (Though I'm certain the templates have been covered by now.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ran Shackled City for an eladrin using SS, can confirm that it was underwhelming.


For Savage Species type stuff, there is also the "In The Company of..." series.


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
For Savage Species type stuff, there is also the "In The Company of..." series.

I just wish it didn't take so long for them to come out with each entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
JiCi, I didn't say it had to be exactly like Savage Species but making 0HD versions of lizardfolk, minotaur, nixie, centuar, satyr, medusa, dragons, giants, some magical beast, etc. Even if they are toned down versions of those creatures that would have been cool. Yeah, I know some of those were done in Advanced Races Guide.

Hold on there, that's not the same thing here. You're asking for much weaker versions of monsters to make them playable, just like we got Deep One Hybrids to match Deep Ones. Half-giants, Minotaur calves, and actual dragonborn would have been great... and a much better alternative than anything Savage Species tried to rule.


On another topic, did Pathfinder ever give us a version of Mettle, maybe under a different name?

I always liked Mettle, but can't seem to find an equivalent in Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yep, Stalwart.


Though I've seen some reviews poo-poo it.


Well the whole point of Savage Species was to get playable monsters. I wanted the same thing for Pathfinder, but done differently and better. Just make 0HD versions of these creatures, they could be weaker versions of them(or a whole new race/subrace) like medium size "Cyclopeskin", medium size Minotaurs, grown-up small/medium size race of playable dragons, etc. Also you can do a lot with racial feats;)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Well the whole point of Savage Species was to get playable monsters. I wanted the same thing for Pathfinder, but done differently and better. Just make 0HD versions of these creatures, they could be weaker versions of them(or a whole new race/subrace) like medium size "Cyclopeskin", medium size Minotaurs, grown-up small/medium size race of playable dragons, etc. Also you can do a lot with racial feats;)

You mean like PF2 did with lizardfolk and leshies?


Gorbacz wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Well the whole point of Savage Species was to get playable monsters. I wanted the same thing for Pathfinder, but done differently and better. Just make 0HD versions of these creatures, they could be weaker versions of them(or a whole new race/subrace) like medium size "Cyclopeskin", medium size Minotaurs, grown-up small/medium size race of playable dragons, etc. Also you can do a lot with racial feats;)
You mean like PF2 did with lizardfolk and leshies?

Lizardfolk and vine leshies are playable races in PF1e. Pretty sure the equivalent has been around in 3.5 for ages as well.

Also, no. They're talking about player sized versions of monstrous races, like lycanthropes > skinwalkers, efreeti > ifrit, hags > changelings, etc.

That said, I do wonder how monstrous races would work for PCs in PF2e.


That the "fixed" version of the Shifter made it to the pocket size softcover release of Ultimate Wilderness. Also fixed versions of the Shifter archetypes in UW as well.

That we got art, stats, and information for all the remaining Kaiju.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yep, Stalwart.

I don't jump on this bandwagon often, but that really should have been a CRB fighter ability.

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.