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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

avr wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

I wish the magus got the sorcerer bloodline as an option as well as the bloodrager version.

Speaking of archetypes that give another classes abilities to a class. Are there any archetypes that give any classes a kineticist's blast, elemental defense, and/or other class abilities?

The Water Dancer Monk and Havocker Witch do.
They give the blast but not enough of the other kineticist class abilities to make it usable.

I think you're supposed to just use kinetic fist.


That doesn't work for a havocker witch unless they want to be suicidal and simultaneously ineffective, and a water dancer monk gets no infusions at all.


avr wrote:
That doesn't work for a havocker witch unless they want to be suicidal and simultaneously ineffective, and a water dancer monk gets no infusions at all.

Oof yeah i just realized extra wild talent had a kineticist requirement rather than a "wild talent ability" requirement. Never mind.

I mean i guess they get dex + 2X cha to AC


Speaking of extra "class feature" feats, are there any extra feats that we didn't get?


Something I would have liked to see would have been design your own character class rules. I know that DND 2E dabbled in it, but I didn't see anything like that in 3E.


OmniMage, I remember a book like that in D&D 2nd Ed and it was so broken... and fun. A book like that for Pathfinder would have been fun as well. Especially if you add in options to replace class features for other class features of about equal value. So you can custom make existing classes without the limitations(and other issues) of archetypes.


If it's any help, Rogue Genius Game's "Talented [class]" line at least lets you pick how you want the given class to progress.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Unchained 2, specifically with rules in there somewhere for Generic Classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some powerful outsiders are missing from P1E. For instance, Orcus, which had an artwork in the Book of the Damned, wasn't stated. Also, and here's the kicker, Demogorgon was mentioned, but was written in a way that Paizo wouldn't have to stat him. Why? Because according to the devs, they couldn't do him with a design... and WotC's design cannot be used.

As a little reminder, before being known for a venus flytrap-headed demon from Stranger Things, Demogorgon was a popualr Demon Lord, even getting an aspect (a much weaker version of his form, aspects being outsiders that looked like actual deities). DG got 2 designs:
1) a bipedal being made of tentacles with 2 hyena heads.
2) a bipedal being made of tentacles with 2 mandrill/baboon heads.

Guess what: fans wouldn't have accepted a radically different design.

Here is another missed opportunity... which I really don't understand why this wasn't explored: a few powerful outsiders are based on the Ars Goetia, such as Shax. WotC's Vestiges were based on those demons. I wished that they picked more of them as Demon lords, such as Malphas, Amon, Eligor and Focalor.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Guess what: fans wouldn't have accepted a radically different design.

Here's a funny bit of trivia: Demogorgon was first named around 350-400 CE as what would amount to a typo. He's appeared in numerous texts throughout history since, but in none of them was he given any description of his appearance. The first known record of what he looked like was in Dungeons and Dragons.

So if someone wanted to completely remake Demogorgon's image, they could say they are sticking with more historical accounts of what he looked like and wouldn't be wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I miss Tiamat a lot more then Orcus, Demogorgon, etc..

I miss the orb spells, even Pathfinder made them evocation and couldn't ignore SR, I would have been fine with that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Paizo could have done Demogorgon, they just didn’t want to. They wanted to write their own demons instead of use someone else’s.

It’s like wanting to play your own character rather than the one your GM played in the last campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Paizo could have done Demogorgon, they just didn’t want to. They wanted to write their own demons instead of use someone else’s.

It’s like wanting to play your own character rather than the one your GM played in the last campaign.

Plus the big thing about demogorgon was that he was the progenitor and object of worship by gnolls, and lamashtu stole that role in pathfinder. Frankly Lamashtu is more interesting


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Guess what: fans wouldn't have accepted a radically different design.

Here's a funny bit of trivia: Demogorgon was first named around 350-400 CE as what would amount to a typo. He's appeared in numerous texts throughout history since, but in none of them was he given any description of his appearance. The first known record of what he looked like was in Dungeons and Dragons.

So if someone wanted to completely remake Demogorgon's image, they could say they are sticking with more historical accounts of what he looked like and wouldn't be wrong.

I know that there are... myriads of representations of demons, but I do recall reading a forum post that one reason they didn't want to introduce DG was because they would have needed to change the design... which wouldn't have mesh well with the fans.

It's if Tiamat went from a five-headed dragon to a human-shaped deity (the latter being the actual representation), people might have rioted.

Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Paizo could have done Demogorgon, they just didn’t want to. They wanted to write their own demons instead of use someone else’s.

It’s like wanting to play your own character rather than the one your GM played in the last campaign.

Plus the big thing about demogorgon was that he was the progenitor and object of worship by gnolls, and lamashtu stole that role in pathfinder. Frankly Lamashtu is more interesting

Except if Demogorgon couldn't be added in the first place...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering the other liberties taken by Paizo with a number of monsters and character races--usually for the better--I'm not sure why they would balk at that particular reinvention. Oh well, it's not like the game really needed a Demogorgon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Found the citation.

James Jacobs wrote:
scifan888 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Ral' Yareth wrote:


James,

If WotC offered you (free of charge!) the legal rights to 5 of their D&D characters, which ones would you pick?

Obox-ob, Demogorgon, Graz'zt, Malcanthet, and Iggwilv.
I thought Demogorgon was based on a real world myth like Orcus was?

This is all going off memory, so I might have some of the facts not exactly right, but...

The name "Demogorgon" originated as the name of a pagan god or demon, invented by a scholar back in the 4th century or so. Since then, the name's been used in that context here and there, perhaps most famously in Milton's "Paradise Lost."

The incarnation of Demogorgon as a demon with two baboon heads and tentacles and the like was 100% invented by Gygax for D&D, and while the name is in the public domian, the depiction of him as he's always been shown in the game is 100% product identity of Wizards of the Coast.

The next post also explains Orcus and how they could use the Tome of Horrors content with proper citations if they wanted.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
It's if Tiamat went from a five-headed dragon to a human-shaped deity (the latter being the actual representation), people might have rioted.

Tiamat is the mother of dragons in Persian mythology and is sometimes depicted as a sea serpent or a dragon. Five-headed, no. But nothing says it can't have five different color scales.

Actually, I think I'll use that. I'm claiming that. Especially since Tiamat is the enemy of Marduk and I've already established Marduk as a cloud dwarf deity.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Do it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
JiCi wrote:
It's if Tiamat went from a five-headed dragon to a human-shaped deity (the latter being the actual representation), people might have rioted.

Tiamat is the mother of dragons in Persian mythology and is sometimes depicted as a sea serpent or a dragon. Five-headed, no. But nothing says it can't have five different color scales.

Actually, I think I'll use that. I'm claiming that. Especially since Tiamat is the enemy of Marduk and I've already established Marduk as a cloud dwarf deity.

That's the thing: maybe it would have rubbed people the wrong way, because a LOT of people know Tiamat as a five-headed dragon. Even with the very best intentions for Paizo to represent the Babylonian deities in the same fashion as the Egyptian deities (as Ancient Orision deities), thus have Tiamat being represented as a human woman or a sinuous dragon, people would still complained about her new look not being the old one.

This is what I've read about Demogorgon: the two-headed incarnation was so popular among D&D players, that if they had to redesign him, they wouldn't have accepted him.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Tiamat is the mother of dragons in Persian mythology and is sometimes depicted as a sea serpent or a dragon. Five-headed, no. But nothing says it can't have five different color scales.

Some sort of quantum color dealie where she's all colors and none, and her breath weapon is automatically whatever energy type (of the five chromatic types, anyway) is most effective at that moment, could be funky.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

That's the thing: maybe it would have rubbed people the wrong way, because a LOT of people know Tiamat as a five-headed dragon. Even with the very best intentions for Paizo to represent the Babylonian deities in the same fashion as the Egyptian deities (as Ancient Orision deities), thus have Tiamat being represented as a human woman or a sinuous dragon, people would still complained about her new look not being the old one.

This is what I've read about Demogorgon: the two-headed incarnation was so popular among D&D players, that if they had to redesign him, they wouldn't have accepted him.

Ten years ago when PF1e launched, sure. But with the 3.5=>PF conversion fan base 10 years removed, I think that the story has changed.


Set wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Tiamat is the mother of dragons in Persian mythology and is sometimes depicted as a sea serpent or a dragon. Five-headed, no. But nothing says it can't have five different color scales.

Some sort of quantum color dealie where she's all colors and none, and her breath weapon is automatically whatever energy type (of the five chromatic types, anyway) is most effective at that moment, could be funky.

Saruman Tiamat of Many Colors?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The only point of having Tiamat around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them Tiamat they knew and loved. Ditto for Demogorgon.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is solved by just saying they have multiple forms. Its not like some gods aren't known for often taking different forms.

Tiamat could had been given the power to transform into the various dragons and dragon amalgamations. Explaining why some have seen her as 5 head, but others as 1 headed. Or they could had written in some lore about how she lost her different heads fighting other gods or something.

But granted if they didnt want to risk it is perfectly understandable.

****************

As for PrCs that increase regular class abilities.

Gray Maiden stacks with Dreadnought Barbarian for Rage rounds. While also Stacking Armor and Weapon Training with Fighter.

In any case the problem with prestige classes, is that they often get abilities that scale with their class level, when they should scale with character level. Together with the unfortunate case of some of them being hold overs from 3.5 giving presedent for lower abilities. If you notice many of the PrCs created by Paizo have some form of scaling with pre-req classes, or abilites that make them very useful even without scaling.

Making PrCs into archetypes would either limit their use way too much by making them accessible by singular classes. Or would require a complete overhaul of the system; An overhaul that just doesnt work with things like Winter Witch & Evangelist that have double scaling, or with those that have fewer than 10 levels like Iomedae's Crusader (which stacks with some Paladin abilities).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

The only point of having Tiamat around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them Tiamat they knew and loved. Ditto for Demogorgon.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.

*looks at the vast array of Mystaran takes on existing characters, both D&D-specific and RW*

Radical redesigns can work.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

The only point of having Tiamat around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them Tiamat they knew and loved. Ditto for Demogorgon.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.

*looks at the vast array of Mystaran takes on existing characters, both D&D-specific and RW*

Radical redesigns can work.

You mean, like Pathfinder 2 worked for you? :D

Shadow Lodge

Bazinga!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*collects high fives and beer*

This is why you all love me, this is why I'm the best. I am not the hero you deserve, but I'm the hero you could not afford.

*shades*

Ain't I, Desna's Avatar?

*shades*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

The only point of having Tiamat around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them Tiamat they knew and loved. Ditto for Demogorgon.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.

The only point of having gnomes around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them gnomes they knew and loved. Ditto for elves.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

The only point of having Tiamat around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them Tiamat they knew and loved. Ditto for Demogorgon.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.

*looks at the vast array of Mystaran takes on existing characters, both D&D-specific and RW*

Radical redesigns can work.

You mean, like Pathfinder 2 worked for you? :D

I'd point out "can", not "will", but frankly you're having so much fun congratulating yourself I can't bring myself to bother.


Clever girl...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So what does the half-sarcasm template cost, anyway? Asking for a friend.


blahpers wrote:
The only point of having gnomes around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them gnomes they knew and loved.

I'd argue that Pathfinder did such a good job giving gnomes a look and "thing" that now halflings are the ones you don't need.

However, your point stood at the beginning of the project.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimte pipe dream would have been a book going back and re-examining some of the more questionable archetypes and character options.

There are so many cool ideas scattered throughout books that just don't work properly or are woefully undertuned.

I really wish in general Paizo hadn't made it company policy that Player Companion content would never receive support.

Set wrote:
But yeah, 0 HD playable gnolls and lizardfolk have long been a wish of mine

Weren't Gnolls and Lizardfolk in the ARG?

blahpers wrote:
I'm not sure why they would balk at that particular reinvention.

I think it's less balking at the reinvention and more that... some of these characters essentially only exist for tabletop players in their D&D incarnations.

There isn't a lot of value in Paizo making their own, unique Demogorgon. It just invites comparisons to the D&D version. Since you're essentially designing original content anyways, might as well just give them a new name too.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I'd argue that Pathfinder did such a good job giving gnomes a look and "thing" that now halflings are the ones you don't need.

Personally don't find either race really compelling... and given how often I see them at tables, I don't think many other people do either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I'm not sure why they would balk at that particular reinvention.

I think it's less balking at the reinvention and more that... some of these characters essentially only exist for tabletop players in their D&D incarnations.

There isn't a lot of value in Paizo making their own, unique Demogorgon. It just invites comparisons to the D&D version. Since you're essentially designing original content anyways, might as well just give them a new name too.

*sighs, points upward*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are...people that attached to Demogorgon? Honestly as much as I played 3e and 3.5, I had no idea he was some big identity.

As for the OP, I really wanted a priest base class. Beguiler and Dread Necromancer would be cool. I wish Paizo expanded on the Unchained stuff. A chained magic book would be neat too.


Scavion wrote:

Are...people that attached to Demogorgon? Honestly as much as I played 3e and 3.5, I had no idea he was some big identity.

As for the OP, I really wanted a priest base class. Beguiler and Dread Necromancer would be cool. I wish Paizo expanded on the Unchained stuff. A chained magic book would be neat too.

The like 10 people who are way too invested in it would also be way louder on all feedback avenues than the 99.9999% who don't care.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Set wrote:
But yeah, 0 HD playable gnolls and lizardfolk have long been a wish of mine
Weren't Gnolls and Lizardfolk in the ARG?

Might I recommend the following: Advanced Lizardfolk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Besides the D&D issues, I believe there was also the view that Paizo had told their demogorgon story during their stewardship of Dungeon. That doesn’t preclude starting him up, but there were a lot more demon lords they’d prefer to do (and would simultaneously sidestep the issue of D&D already defining demogorgon in their way).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

The only point of having Tiamat around would be to attract the D&D nerdcore crowd and the only way of doing so would be to give them Tiamat they knew and loved. Ditto for Demogorgon.

If you can't use their iconic looks, you're better off just making something original.

They did introduce Apsu and Dahak though, but even then, they mentioned Tiamat, as a chained outsider waiting to escape.

Oddly enough, Apsu... seems to be inspired by the actual Mesopotamian deity Abzu, who was the god of fresh water, with his lover Tiamat, the god of salt water.

I do recall in a Faerun book, they represented a LOT of deities, and Tiamat had her human form being a pale-skinned human with dark hair.

You say that they couldn't use iconic looks, but perusing through books of both editions will reveal that some deities or deity-level outsiders have roughly the same design.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's because of the fact that some of them in D&D used their image from mythology. D&D Pazuzu and PF Pazuzu look the same, because D&D took their image from Mesopotamia, so no copyright there.

Tiamat as a five-headed dragon where each head corresponds to the iconic chromatic dragon color? That's lock, stock and barrel WotC.


If we had gotten a Priest class or a unchained Cleric, would have loved more class features/options that are much more focused on the Deity you have chosen.


Dragon78 wrote:
If we had gotten a Priest class or a unchained Cleric, would have loved more class features/options that are much more focused on the Deity you have chosen.

As generally overbearing as they were mechanically, I feel like one of the bigger shortcomings of PF was just how kind of identityless most full casters felt outside just the pile of spells they got. Actual class features are kinda bare bones, so the choices you make as part of them don't always feel impactful.

Oracle got to do some cool stuff with Revelations and I feel like that might be one of the reasons the class is as popular as it is.


Gorbacz wrote:
That's because of the fact that some of them in D&D used their image from mythology. D&D Pazuzu and PF Pazuzu look the same, because D&D took their image from Mesopotamia, so no copyright there.

Huh, interesting...

Gorbacz wrote:
Tiamat as a five-headed dragon where each head corresponds to the iconic chromatic dragon color? That's lock, stock and barrel WotC.

I know, but what would be the consequences of depicting Tiamat in the real original form?

Kinda hard to argue with historical proofs against fictional depictions...

That's like arguing about PF's version of Set being the Jackal when compared to D&D's version being the Donkey... when Set was known to have a head based on a jackal, a donkey, a pig or a fox.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You could depict Tiamat as something else, but the first thread here about that would be Bubba from Texas angry that this Tiamat isn't his Tiamat. His Tiamat has chromatic heads and a bucket of lore, so Paizo where's my Tiamat?

For people who aren't nerdcore D&Ders, Tiamat means nothing. For the nerdcore, it's D&D Tiamat or bust. Doubly so if Paizo *can* use Pazuzu and Orcus more or less the way they exist in D&D but *can't* use Tiamat. Turns out, not every Bubba is an expert in IP law and public domain. Who would have thought?

Tl'dr - namedropping something you can't use the way one segment of customers will expect you to and the other segment doesn't give a flip about was something Paizo isn't doing anymore. You won't find any mention of Tiamat in books going beyond the very early Pathfinder days, back when there were several ooopsies best left forgotten.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

You could depict Tiamat as something else, but the first thread here about here would be Bubba from Texas angry that this Tiamat isn't his Tiamat. His Tiamat has chromatic heads and a bucket of lore, so Paizo where's my Tiamat?

Plus Dahak is better. I like the idea of chromatic dragons hating and fearing their progenitor more than the worshipful awe tiamat generally recieved in lore.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

^^^ seconded


*goes through and edits all instances of "Tiamat" so that they read "Takhisis" because that's his vision of Tiamat*


moar like Tiamat


Would have loved more categories of magic such as nature magic(druid, hunter, ranger).

Chi/Ki magic caster based classes/options would have been interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Would have loved more categories of magic such as nature magic(druid, hunter, ranger).

Paizo obviously agreed, given that they did that in PF2e.

One thing I think would have been cool for magic is breaking the monster spell-lists down into narrower "themes" and then letting players build individual spell lists by picking a certain number of themes.

301 to 350 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.